[FairfieldLife] Re: Please snip your posts when possible
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: The message you requested is temporarily unavailable because this group has exceeded its download limit. http://help.yahoo.com/kb/index?page=contenty=PROD_GRPSlocale=en_USid=SLN4059impressions=true I have been getting the same message, on some browsers, on others it worked, until I noticed it works when you log in. Otherwise, if you want to just read, try this mirror http://www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com/ There is a time delay, but usually neglect-able. But for readability, I'm a friend of snipping posts, yet, I notice that some here, think you should quote them fully, as if you would censor what they were writing, if you snip. Unfortunately, the yahoo system does not always make it clear to which post you are responding. There are numbers for posts, but they are not quoted, you could do that manually, or post the link to the post you are responding to.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Please snip your posts when possible
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@... wrote: Agree snip and writing the answer in a different font(color) helps snip http://www.murraymoffatt.com/software-problem-0011.html Merudanda, if you use the html yahoo editor, for coloring your font, don't forget to make the links click-able.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tantrum Yoga
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: By the way, did your check from the Dalai Lama this week include a bonus for having taunted a certain TB into posting out? Mine did. Gotta do that more often, the economy being what it is. Well, I got only the half amount I usually get :-( because he said I had to share it with Buck, who just has to honestly post the latest on-goings in the Domes... More seriously, isn't it fascinating that some would rather believe that anyone who doesn't buy into the ludicrous TM dogma on this forum is doing so because they were paid to do so by some nefarious Buddhist leader such as the Dalai Lama? As opposed to merely stating personal opinions arrived at by using a facility they gave up years or decades ago -- being able to think for oneself. The Dalai Lama is so popular, in my country he is more popular than the pope - and the pope is from my country. Even the most infamous, conservative tabloid would bring quotes and excerpts from his books, many of the most known politicians are friends with him, and would receive him despite of the protests of the Chinese. Btw. I believe that Nabby and Lawson are Chinese agents. And Judy is bombarding FFL with DoS attacks, using the advanced search function. We bad. :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNbZcT8RXgE Yeah, that's us! Really, where did you get this from?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SSRS's instruction on silent awareness during meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Oh dear, for the last 39 years I've been doing TM improperly. The horror. Lawson, that's the dawn of knowledge, when you know that you don't know anymore, all your previous knowledge has been evaporated. There is a very good practice in Zen to cultivate the 'don't know' mind. If you like, read this http://www.kwanumzen.org/about-zen/three-letters-to-a-beginner/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SSRS's instruction on silent awareness during meditation
Xeno, very beautiful analysis, just what I was thinking about, but expressed more elegantly. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: I think this argument here may be because we have assigned a term to a particular experience and view that as an entity, as if it were an object. When we are awake we are conscious, even if we cannot define what consciousness is. The experience called TC is also consciousness, but it is not a separate entity. TM is kind of like an analytical reductionist state, where ever-present consciousness is separated out experientially, as it were, from normal activity. In waking the mind is active and the reflection of that in consciousness is active. When in TC, the mind is still, the reflection of that is still, no activity, no intellection, no ability to define. It is consciousness experiencing an undefined value; activity, consciousness in a defined value. So in a sense consciousness is never really 'pure' as a separate thing, it is just the means to grasp wider experience by creating a temporary artificial state. Consciousness is not something elsewhere, it is always here. To get people to meditate, one tells them a fib, that there is this better thing one can experience because if you tell them they already have consciousness in full measure, they won't be able to conceive that is true until they have a wider range of experience. Take salt. A transparent crystal. We can find out more about salt by chemically breaking it down and putting it back together. We can break it into a yellow-greenish gas and a bright silvery metal. But the wholeness of salt is gone in this state, until we chemically put the two components back together. This analogy breaks down, because chlorine and sodium are entities, while consciousness is not. Being contains active and non active but we can't tell which is which until we experience clearly what truly deep inactivity is, when all possible activity is gone commensurate with wakefulness. The ultimate object of meditation is not to experience TC indefinitely, it is to experience how all the possible states fit together as one unified block where everything has the same level of 'purity'. The purpose of meditation and activity is to separate, and then put it all back together repeatedly until we get the significance of what 'together' is. In CC for example, you cannot grasp what 'together' is, you cannot imagine it. You can imagine something, but you cannot imagine it correctly. You know what activity is, and you know what deep silence is, but they are still separate. When they come together, in fact, you still cannot imagine it, but you know. But how to say it, you are mute.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ramblings around Leiden
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Former Cardinal Ratzinger, former head of the Inquisition, and current Pope of the Church Of Rome, is from Germany, same place Nabby is from. Nope, Nabby isn't from Germany, not of 2012. Before 1945, for a short period his country was. That's right, it was the former Pope who was Polish, Ratzinger is from Bavaria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavaria#Kingdom_of_Bavaria Bild isn't a Bavarian newspaper. It's the main German tabloid, roughly corresponding to the Sun in UK, the same that features excerpts from the Dalai Lama. The headline, no very famous says: 'We are Pope', meaning something like, with Ratzi, we all Germans became now pope sort of. [Headline: ]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ramblings around Leiden
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Former Cardinal Ratzinger, former head of the Inquisition, and current Pope of the Church Of Rome, is from Germany, same place Nabby is from. Nope, Nabby isn't from Germany, not of 2012. Before 1945, for a short period his country was. That's right, it was the former Pope who was Polish, Ratzinger is from Bavaria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavaria#Kingdom_of_Bavaria Bild isn't a Bavarian newspaper. It's the main German tabloid, roughly corresponding to the Sun in UK, the same that features excerpts from the Dalai Lama. http://www.bild.de/leute/2007/leute/dalai-lama-bild-gala-leipzig-1830428.bild.html They even gave him a media price, called Bild-Osgar. http://www.bild.de/news/2007/news/gluecklicher-mensch-1798012.bild.html The headline, no very famous says: 'We are Pope', meaning something like, with Ratzi, we all Germans became now pope sort of. [Headline: ]
[FairfieldLife] Re: SSRS's instruction on silent awareness during meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Determining whether or not the mantra is subtle isn't part of TM practice. Lawson, you were making the point, that just thinking OF the mantra, would be a subtle form of the mantra. And, since it is your main point here, to immediately return to the mantra, if you notice it isn't there, as you make this point again below, that it is imperial to follow the TM instruction, you constantly contradict yourself. If the mantra can be so vague, that you don't know anymore if you are thinking it or not, how could you then follow the instruction? You should at least know if you are thinking the mantra, in order to be able to determine if you should go back to it, when you are not. Now you say it doesn't matter if it is subtle or not, then you claim, thinking about the mantra is a subtle form thereof. It is all self contradictory. You and Judy have been making this point for ages, that the mantra could be so subtle, that you don't know if it's there. That's all BS, if you don't know if it's there, you can't go back to it. So much for your 'I just follow instructions' Nor does it matter that it doesn't matter. If you're doing TM, then you follow the instructions, if you don't follow the instructions, such as they are, then you're not doing TM. Of course, follow the instructions can be kind of vauge sometimes, but that's as OK as any other part of the process. As long as you can think a thought, you can meditate. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Oh dear, for the last 39 years I've been doing TM improperly. The horror. Lawson, that's the dawn of knowledge, when you know that you don't know anymore, all your previous knowledge has been evaporated. There is a very good practice in Zen to cultivate the 'don't know' mind. If you like, read this http://www.kwanumzen.org/about-zen/three-letters-to-a-beginner/ I have been practicing TM for a long time, and I do think this 'don't know' mind has come about. A long long time ago I learned mindfulness, and found at that time it was rather difficult, or perhaps because my mind would not settle down then, annoying. Lately though the character of TM and mindfulness just seem to have merged; it does not matter anymore. It does not matter whether the mantra is there or not, or if I notice that the mantra is not there, it does not matter if I start it again or not. It actually seems as if there are no subtle levels of the mantra at all. I think it helps to find alternative explanations, to try to find different ways to explain the same thing. This is easy to do with metaphysics because there are no facts. The scientist Richard Feynman would attack physics problems this way, he would try to find alternative ways to explain various phenomena, and of course he was ultimately constrained by facts, what the experiments showed. This keeps thinking more flexible, and when you do this, you are breaking the potential for doctrinaire ossification of belief. You step outside on a fine sunny day and there is all this stuff and instead of saying, 'Well, there is a pond, and trees, and clouds'; you just feel 'Wow!', And then if that could be expressed in more concrete conceptual terms it might be something like 'What is all this?'. A certain freshness imbues experience because you do not know what is going to happen and you are not thinking about what things are and what they might become.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SSRS's instruction on silent awareness during meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: I'll put it differently: if there is a choice, there is also a chooser. There is no choice. It is choiceless awareness. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: You're sure about this, are you... Yes, absoutely. From everything you have said here, I am absolutely sure that you don't know about it, and that's okay. You cannot relate from your on experience, and then project it to what I and for example Xeno or Empty were saying. I accept, that whatever you say, is the way for you, you cannot go any other way. But you have not enough knowledge to comment on the instructions of other teachers like SSRS, or even Guru Dev, or Swami Shantanand Saraswathi. To believe that these later two, didn't know how to meditate correctly is just hilarious and arrogant. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: And again: noticing something, however subtle, even the first glimmering of awareness of awareness, is no longer pure consciousness. Lawson, not trying to be arrogant here, but the states Empty and I are talking about, you simply don't know. You really have no glue. You are just talking from a script. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: Thank you Empty, this is simply superb, best post of the week IMHO. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Lawson. You do not seem to understand SSRS's instructions about meditation with a mantra. Is this because you have never heard those instructions? SSRS pointed out that a meditator does not need to place attention back upon the mantra during meditation just because they become aware they are not thinking the mantra. Recognition of not thinking the mantra does not itself constitute a requirement to think the mantra. Likewise, the realization of not thinking the mantra does not, in itself, constitute a form of thinking. The reason is simple. The nature of awareness is witnessing (sakshi-j�ana). This is pure Vedanta. When the field of experience subsides with the ceasing (nirodha) of every external or internal experience, including the termination of I-consciousness (aham-pratyaya), what remains is the awareness that is naturally present as the inner self (pratyag-atman). Awareness is a seer (drista). It is not the cognizer of a cognitive activity (pramata). It is not a knower (j�aatri), a doer (kartri) or an enjoyer (bhoktri) but rather is knowingness itself. The seer is the witness-consciousness (sakshin) which witnesses the ending of all forms of experience during meditation and simply remains as is, uninvolved and prior to all experience. SSRS's instruction is founded upon this realization and is the pointing-out instruction which allows meditators to remain as they truly are. They remain, during this period of silent awareness, as sheer seeing (dristi-matrataa) until cognitive, affective or sensory activity causes limited identification once again. Thus recognizing or remembering the mantra occurs as a natural consequence rather than from a demand to think the mantra. ..
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM newsletter from India
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: http://www.e-gyan.net/ the current issue starts out in HIndu-Urdi, then continues in English. Okay, Lawson, this was a little confusing, but even though Hindu and Urdu are almost the same when spoken, the letters are most definitely different, Urdu is written like Arabic, from right to left, Hindi is almost the same as Devanagari, and that is what you see in the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Hindi
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM, the Dome Badge, and Religious Practices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: I remained utterly devoted to Maharishi right up until I determined that my enlightenment was a form of profound mystical deceitfulness, a perfect hallucination. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NQn9HqMQ70
[FairfieldLife] Love song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR1sP0hBuN8
[FairfieldLife] El Shaday
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeQbRhg53Uo
[FairfieldLife] Re: A note to Alex Stanley
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Former Cardinal Ratzinger, former head of the Inquisition, and current Pope of the Church Of Rome, is from Germany, same place Nabby is from. Nope, Nabby isn't from Germany, not of 2012. Before 1945, for a short period his country was. Nabby, don't be paranoid. I am deliberately not telling your name nor country. Nazi Germany had occupied many countries. All that ended in 1945. Last time the iran tried to out me he was off target but that doesn't seem to stop him from trying. I take it that Alex will use stronger sanctions if he violates the rules of FFL again.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What 50+ is like if you're a supermodel
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: And just think...in all these years, surrendering to the flow of the writing, not once has either what I was writing about or who I was writing to become so obsessive for me that I lost track of my Post Count and pressed Send accidentally. :-) Carlos Castaneda once defined the actions of a spiritual warrior as controlled folly. I always liked that. What you're tripping on as you try to act a scene perfectly, or capture a creative thought in writing as it flows by, is to some extent folly. You're walking a high wire, and without a net. Folly *alone* is stupid, and people rarely appreciate or applaud it. It's the control aspect that makes it art. I always have liked the concept of the 'controlled folly', as well as the Castaneda books. As the controlled folly is applied in the 'art of stalking', you should think that our main stalkers here on board should know about it, but not so.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, marekreavis reavismarek@... wrote: Buck, who do you believe it is that follows FFL so avidly and who we would be surprised do? *** Marek, there are more lurkers than you think, as there are also many inactive members, many just don't want to participate in fights or expose themselves to the public, so they don't post. But apart form that, FFL very frequently tops Google searches for very special search terms. Obviously people are not interested in the kind of quibbles some here have specialized in, but there are still interesting topics coming up, with some, I think quite sophisticated input. I have checked access to the group, when not being logged in, and access to other public Yahoo groups, I am not a member of, and it seemed there was no problem in the other groups, but one would have to test this a little more. That bots can play a role is obvious, as there are sometimes captchas coming along with Google searches, especially if there are a lot of searches coming from one IP. This is to filter out bots. Logging in would be one means by Yahoo to ensure it is not an automated request. Bot activity is obviously quite common and widespread in the internet, so it does not mean that it is necessarily directed against FFL in particular, OTOH it cannot be excluded, whoever says the opposite is lying. As we have a mirror site, it would be easy for lurkers to go just there, if they only knew, not so likely if they are coming from Google search. Maybe the mirror site should be mentioned in the intro text, of course one would have to ensure it is not against Yahoo policies. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Is there some reason people are interested in us? Not bloody likely. :-) Dear Mr.Turguoiseb, I would respectfully disagree with your (narrow) POV on this. I found the recent discussion of SSRS's instruction on silent awareness during meditation versus the other brand meditation to be particularly well drawn out on both sides. It was very interesting. I would suspect that both interested parties, camps of SSRS-AOL'ers and MMY-TM'ers, were downloading the proceedings like crazy following through the discussion that discerned some very interesting spiritual nuance. It was very interesting indeed and certainly drove readership. There were some other subjects too during the period which evidently drove FFL downloads by non-member lurkers. This new 'exceeding download' error message seems to revolve around periods of content driven downloads. Unless these were denial of service downloads, we should expect now that Yahoo in its liquidation would sell FFL as an asset that actually drives content views. You'd be amazed who all the audience of this place is. Some writers would be embarrassed if they realized. -Buck
[FairfieldLife] Re: SSRS's instruction on silent awareness during meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Jul 27, 2012, at 7:42 AM, iranitea no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Determining whether or not the mantra is subtle isn't part of TM practice. Lawson, you were making the point, that just thinking OF the mantra, would be a subtle form of the mantra. And, since it is your main point here, to immediately return to the mantra, if you notice it isn't there, as you make this point again below, that it is imperial to follow the TM instruction, you constantly contradict yourself. If the mantra can be so vague, that you don't know anymore if you are thinking it or not, how could you then follow the instruction? You should at least know if you are thinking the mantra, in order to be able to determine if you should go back to it, when you are not. Now you say it doesn't matter if it is subtle or not, then you claim, thinking about the mantra is a subtle form thereof. It is all self contradictory. You and Judy have been making this point for ages, that the mantra could be so subtle, that you don't know if it's there. That's all BS, if you don't know if it's there, you can't go back to it. So much for your 'I just follow instructions' The primary indicator of reaching the end of mantra (the nÄdÄnta) is photism, as the mantraâs sound energy becomes light energy. An experienced mantra-yogi progresses through sixteen sequentially advanced stages in the refinement of the mantra. Someone practicing at the finest levels will be able to experience around 512 thought-recitations of mantra to the average beginners 1 vibration. Beginners mantra meditation methods come nowhere near this level of subtlety, so I wouldnât expect Lawson to be really aware of this, although itâs not unusual for TMers to make really exaggerated claims about what they âthinkâ they can do. ;-) Welcome back, Vaj! Interesting thoughts. One thing that is also a misunderstanding of the terms subtle and vague. The instruction in TM is always to pick up the mantra on the level of thought, where one just is at the moment, and then think it like any other thought, it would automatically correspond in subtlety with ones level of awareness. The impression of the mantra being vague or distant, comes from the fact that the mind is unacquainted with these subtle states, therefore it cannot perceive them properly. This would be a sign for the beginner, that the mantra has become more refined. In a certain way, the vagueness of the mantra is signified between the distance of the thinking mind in meditation, to the obviously more subtle perception of the mantra. Imagine you stand near the highway, while cars are rushing with 90 mph, it will be hard for you to notice details on the car while they are rushing by. But if you are going with a similar speed, (if you are not driving yourself) you can look at the car and see many details. The problem comes as it is habitual for many TMers to have thoughts and mantra going parallel. Then this impression comes that Lawson says that the mind stuff feels mantra-ish, or uses words like mantraness (To all TM newbies and lurkers here: These are NOT terms used by the TMO, or part of the TM instructions, they are inventions of Lawson). That is to say, that the mantra is going on in the background, most likely while other thought activity is going on in the foreground. The mantra is obviously not perceived as mantra anymore, it is just perceived that it is somehow there. A vagueness that is not directly perceived but by its effects, as, I guess Lawson had something in mind like a coloring of the mind. It's more like a neutrino or the Higgs particle, which cannot be detected directly anymore, but through its effects. But the mantra is not an end in itself, all these perceptions are just WITHIN the mind, it is just more of mind, and therefore quite useless. The instruction in the checking notes is, when one notices the mantra and strong thought activity, one should give slight preference to the mantra, while not pushing the thoughts away. To speak of the mantra as being there, while a person would not even notice it, as Judy has once in the past suggested to me, is simply an absurdity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SSRS's instruction on silent awareness during meditation
Vaj said: Someone practicing at the finest levels will be able to experience around 512 thought-recitations of mantra to the average beginners 1 vibration. If we would have just one person practicing like this in the domes, having 512 thought recitations, that's almost the amount of pundits they now gonna import. They could save some money and just import 44 pundits.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM, the Dome Badge, and Religious Practices
When I first signed the agreement form, it as just short before we received the TM initiator initiation, I thought that it was a mere formality, and I thought that the term purity of the teaching related to teaching the 7 steps of TM. 7 steps. Intro lecture, prep lecture, personal interview, initiation - the puja, the mantras, the 'steps', and the 3 days checking. That's it, I thought. But now I learn, that signing this agreement form, was like signing a blanco checque, that anything could be added to this term, be it Ayurveda, Vastu, Maharishi Jyotish, Maharishi natural products etc etc. And now I learn, that the purity of the teaching relates to all of them, and we don't even know what is yet to come, which will fall under this term. The purity of the teaching is really a whore. Knowing all this development, we should have at least have one week of lectures just about the agreement form. I think there was one lecture by Maharishi, playing it more or less down. At the times I signed it first, there were no domes yet, no group flying, no Ayurveda, no Vastu or Maharishi Jyotish, no Maharishi honey etc. What I find unforgivable, is the fact, that the group program, which is really the holy grail of the movement is being instrumentalized as a means of punishment, of sanctioning, and if Buck is correct, to impart the rules they make, would allow them to spy on people and behave in a manner which only the secret service does. And even more so, do this out of a basically economic reason, as several posters here agree. Where is the purity of the teaching in all this? At the moment I learned about the purity of the teaching, it was about 'capture the fort, and all else will be given to you'. No need for special services and add on techniques. Now you are jeopardizing the purity of the teaching if you buy the wrong house, or the wrong honey or the get the wrong horoscope. And of course, you didn't know anything about this, hen you signed this paper at your TTC. As long as people feel this commitment to go to the domes, or as long as they want to participate in the common group program, so long the movement will have you in their hands, they will be able to control people. I cannot feel such a commitment on the basis of the experiences I had when starting to meditate. While I see the value of TM, especially for the beginner, I don't see it's exclusiveness. Transcendence to me predates any experience, I had anticipations of transcendence before TM, I had experiences before too. And, of course, I had many experiences after. So I cannot fee obliged my whole life to one particular experience, and let it enclose my life in one particular pattern. The same is true for you Robin, quite obviously and even much more dramatically, but I cannot achieve the kind of compartmentalization you are making with respect to all the different Robins in your personal history. To me it seems there is a Robin1, a Robin2, a Robin3 and a Robin4 up until 5 maybe, all of them are fairly intact, lets call Robin1 the Robin who as a TB teacher and just newly enlightened, Robin2 the Robin of the seminars at FF and whatever happened there, the Robin3 the one who read Aquinas and became converted to Catholicism, and Robin4 is the post modern, post catholic Robin. There is also Robin0, the one who experimented with LSD (which I never took). Robin4 tells us that the whole TM trip as a deception, and illusion, and side by side in the same post Robin1 tells that the initiation into TM is the most marvelous experience, to which we should always be committed and faithful. Robin4 tells Emily it is better to never start TM, and Robin1 tells Vaj, that he doesn't know anything because he never transcended and urges him to start learning TM. It is as if all these personas, are overlay-ed upon each other, but there is no final resolution. Maybe it is your purpose to work on your own history, to reach a sense of resolution between these levels, but to me it seems you resort to some sort of mysticism instead. For Buck I am glad that he is there, in whatever situation he is in, and makes these things known to us creating transparency. To me he is a very authentic and honest person. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Dear Share, My take on all this policing of persons who go outside of the spiritual resources sanctioned by the TM Movement is pretty simple. Those who devise and enforce these rules (which originated in Maharishi himself) are going by their first experience of what TM and Maharishi represented: This is The Way; there is no other way that compares to the TM-Maharishi way. TM is defined as the simplest and most natural technique to take one to the deepest level of one's very beingthere is no other practice which is defined mechanically and objectively such as to afford the most efficient way of transcendingthere are no
[FairfieldLife] Re: What 50+ is like if you're a supermodel
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: And just think...in all these years, surrendering to the flow of the writing, not once has either what I was writing about or who I was writing to become so obsessive for me that I lost track of my Post Count and pressed Send accidentally. :-) Carlos Castaneda once defined the actions of a spiritual warrior as controlled folly. I always liked that. What you're tripping on as you try to act a scene perfectly, or capture a creative thought in writing as it flows by, is to some extent folly. You're walking a high wire, and without a net. Folly *alone* is stupid, and people rarely appreciate or applaud it. It's the control aspect that makes it art. I always have liked the concept of the 'controlled folly', as well as the Castaneda books. As the controlled folly is applied in the 'art of stalking', you should think that our main stalkers here on board should know about it, but not so. Why Tea, I couldn't help but pick up on your phrase, our main stalkers. It sounds like you consider yourself a sort of celebrity No I'm not! I am more sympathizing with Barry here. One doesn't need to be a celebrity to be the object of a stalker. Stalking frequently happens in any type of relationship, or the desire for it. and there is the distinct flavor in the way you wrote that that you like it! I like irony. But wait, do you mean to threaten me that I will be stalked on? (jokingly I suppose) And the sense of camraderie with your fellow stalkees is unmistakable. That is rather humorous actually. Judy, take note, they LIKE it! Judy would know what this term refers to: It is the fact that she followed Barry here, after he had left AMT for good, trying to find a more consensual discussion environment. The conflict between them is one of decades, 14 years as Barry says. When Judy came back this week, her second post was to him. Now, Ann, beyond all playfulness and humor and teasing each other, take one deep breath and a minute of silence: 14 years! Consider this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM, the Dome Badge, and Religious Practices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: Dear Iranitea, Multiple Personality. I was diagnosed recently, and have been fighting it. Robin, don't fight it. Because which Robin would fight it, and would all the other Robins agree? Try to take them into the boat rather. Robin0, Robin1, Robin2, Robin3, Robin4, and now (if you read my conversation with Share) Robin5 (Brahman Consciousness)I actually experience myself coming in and going out into all of these six forms of Robin alternately, iranitea. Mind you, when I am in one of these states of consciousness I have a particular view of another state of Robin; for instance the RobinOhe was still in waking state; and could only dream about BC (Robin5). But sometimes Robin5 looks nostalgically back at Robin-1 (before LSD): that guy is, if you really want to know the truth, who my shrink wants me to get back to. And I think him right in this. (Actually it is a sheand she's very beautifulOh, my: but now we are into another problem: RobinR (Robin Romantic)but he has been with all the other seven Robins. Robin-1, Robin0, Robin1 and so on.) Yes RobinRomantic, he must be a twin of RobinN (RobinNostalgic) Are you wanting a fight here, iranitea? Me? No! I can't take it up with 7 Robins. Why can't you just be nice and show us you are becoming the Selfinstead of faking us out by displaying so prominently all the earmarks of the little self you are trying to get rid of? Sorry, I am just trying to make some sense out of you. Sucking up to Buck, are you? Yep, I like him. And I support what he is about. I am loving and honouring and respecting Buck. Yeah, I could use a transparency make-over. But what about Share Long? Where does she fit into the cosmos? She just fits fine wherever she may be. I am working on that one as you can see. No, iranitea, it all makes perfect sense: Why there are seven Robins, is the same reason why there are 330 millions gods in Hinduism, or, to speak more conservatively: There is no second God, nor a third, nor is even a fourth spoken of There is no fifth God or a sixth nor is even a seventh mentioned. There is no eighth God, nor a ninth. Nothing is spoken about a tenth even. This unique power is in itself. That Lord is only one, the only omnipresent. It is one and the only one. Atharva Veda 13.4.2 19-20 Oh, nice, I didn't know that one. What about the trinity? I am aware, in my seven states of Robin simultaneouslyor as my poor (but very pretty) psychoanalyst puts it: my Multiple Personalityof essentially being The Lord [as] only oneI am the one and the only one. I know this by direct experience, iranitea, and you are just trying to bring me back into ignorance and Maya and trying to fuck with my mind. I am enlightened! Don't you know that by now, iranitea? Now, which Robin is saying this? WHO says that I AM enlightened? Obviously not Robin3 or Robin4, also not Robin-1. It could only be Robin0, Robin2 or Robin5, possibly also RobinR Sure I resort to mysticism but maybe I don't. Maybe I am just playing at being seven Robins. And maybe I am not. Maybe I created myself*and even created YOU, iranitea*and maybe I did not (probably not, as a matter of fact). Enjoy the mystical, iranitea: it's what it's all about after all. And in the final analysis what does it matter how we quarrel here on FFL? We are, after all, only the Self. You and me, iranitea: *We are the same*! Hmmm.. Life obviously is infinitely innocent and infinitely ironic. Don't you see this, iranitea? Yes! I am one of the Hindu gods using the universe as my playground. Just like you, iranitea. I see what you are doing! Wink-wink. But do the readers here at FFL? We won't tell them, iranitea. Or will we? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM72iWami9M Iranitea: And, of course, I had many experiences after. So I cannot fee obliged my whole life to one particular experience, and let it enclose my life in one particular pattern. The same is true for you Robin, quite obviously and even much more dramatically, but I cannot achieve the kind of compartmentalization you are making with respect to all the different Robins in your personal history. To me it seems there is a Robin1, a Robin2, a Robin3 and a Robin4 up until 5 maybe, all of them are fairly intact, lets call Robin1 the Robin who as a TB teacher and just newly enlightened, Robin2 the Robin of the seminars at FF and whatever happened there, the Robin3 the one who read Aquinas and became converted to Catholicism, and Robin4 is the post modern, post catholic Robin. There is also Robin0, the one who experimented with LSD (which I never took). Robin4 tells us that the whole TM trip as a deception, and illusion, and side by side in the same post
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cool loneliness: Six Kinds of Loneliness By Ani Pema Choedroen
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Thanks for finding and posting this, Meru. I'm having a problem with Flash and its plugins to Chrome and Firefox recently, and can't successfully view videos on YouTube without my machine crashing. It's frustrating, because it means that until I find a patch or a fix, I can't really watch any of the cool links provided by people here. Oh well...my middle way approach to it is to try not to mind. :-) Have you tried uninstalling and reinstalling the software? I just found out I could not watch a youtube Flash video on Firefox, but was able to on Chrome. The crashes happen for me in both Firefox and Chrome, alas. I have a lot of script and ad blocking software on Firefox. When I shut down the blocking software completely, I was then able to run Flash videos on Firefox. I have come across this idea on the Net as I researched the problem, and am hoping that it *isn't* an incompatibility between Flash and Ad-Blocker. I would sooner do without watching videos on YouTube than do without Ad-Blocker. :-) HTML5 videos are also sometimes served up as alternates to Flash. Adobe also tries to install update software on machines which can cut in at unexpected times. http://www.youtube.com/html5 Adobe is well known in the business for putting out some of the buggiest and crappiest releases in software history, and for not giving a damn when this is pointed out to them. That's one of the reasons I can almost understand Apple not providing support for Flash in its phones and iPads; they don't want to be put in the position of continually dealing with complaints from users about bugs that are caused by Flash.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 3 Days Checking Forms
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: Does anyone have a copy of them? http://minet.org/www.trancenet.net/secrets/forms/index.shtml
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dear Diary
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: It's been an interesting few days here at Fairfield Life Junior High School. First some guy tried to stand up to the leader of my clique, as if he not only didn't care what She thought of him (imagine!), he also didn't care whether She'd give him strokes for agreeing with her (the idiot!). Of course She had to try to shout him down, but She got so caught up in it (understandable, of course!) that She wound up talking in class too much trying to put him down, and got suspended for a week. I thought I was gonna die. I mean, what can you do when the person you depend on to fight your battles for you and put down the people She tells you to dislike isn't around any more? It was awful, like some kind of test (and you know how I hate tests!). It was like we were left on our own to try to figure out who to hate without Her here to tell us and to give us strokes when we ranked on them. But it was only a one-week suspension, so I did the same thing that the other girls in the clique (and the four guys, who are so catty that they're almost honorary members of the clique!), and played pile on to Her standard enemies. And that worked, to some extent. Every time I did that, one or more of the other members of the clique would pat me on the back and tell me nice things about myself. It was almost like still having Her around, and I was groovin' on all the attention I was getting. Some of us even managed to do what She no longer can, and got one or more of the enemies to respond to our bullying, one on one, and give us *their* attention. It felt GOOD to get their attention, and to feed on it, just as She always said it would. And of course it paid off, because when She came back from her week of detention, She's been giving us attention and praising us and patting us on the back for Doing The Right Thing, just as we knew She would. It's been a pity that She can't get any of Her enemies to respond to Her any more, because we like it best when our champion gets them with her witty putdowns in the hallways of the school, in front of the lurker students who aren't cool enough to be members of our clique but like to watch the fighting anyway. But one of the almost-members-of-the-clique guys figured out how to get at least one of Her enemies to respond to him, by insulting one of Her enemies who moved to another school. It was kind of a pussy move for a guy, ragging on someone who hasn't been around for months and who isn't around to defend herself, but it worked. He got praised by She Who Counts for doing it, and it gave Her the opportunity to put down that person again, so almost-clique-member guy got all sorts of strokes for it. It worked so well, in fact, that I'm thinking of doing the same thing myself. I'll think of something nasty to say about one of the other kids who She has driven away, and say it. Maybe Ruth. Or that Curtis guy. I'll think of something nasty to say about them, and then She will think of something nice to say about me, and I'll be all important in the clique again. And that's all that matters. Barry, excellent writing! Good parody, and spot on, it gave me the first laugh of the day, together with the recommendation of Cloud Atlas, which I will see when I come back from Middle-East / Asia to my Central / East European home. I'm off today in a week. (We don't tell Buck what a cross-dresser and a T-girl is!)
[FairfieldLife] Re: 3 Days Checking Forms
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: Thanks. They didn't scan them at full size, so they're hard to read, but that's a start. Of the first and second day checking, you find the questions included in html here: http://minet.org/www.trancenet.net/secrets/checking/3day1.shtml From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of iranitea Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 2:42 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 3 Days Checking Forms --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Does anyone have a copy of them? http://minet.org/www.trancenet.net/secrets/forms/index.shtml
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dear Diary
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: Iraniea: Barry, excellent writing! Good parody, and spot on, it gave me the first laugh of the day... RESPONSE: And tell Buck too, iranitea, since you have made explicit your sympathy and support him in all that he is doing, that he should not be discouraged in his laudable moral crusade here on FFL. Your first laugh of the day? M-m-m: for me, laughter is an opinion-free zone. You should have had some laughs before this, iranitea. If you become pre-selective in your laughter (which jokes are said by the right person with the right party affiliation) I assure you, your soul will start to rust. This response to Barry was first-aid, comfort, compensation. It lacked the confidence of a response driven by pure appreciation. And therefore it is an insult to the writer. Nope. It was totally genuine, innocent. You are just constructing all this. Btw. I live in a different time zone, and my laugh was in the morning, when I checked it on my phone. I laugh also about you, but you said I shouldn't pick fights with you. And, you demonstrate once more, that you don't really know me at all, your psychic powers are just bluff. Your only concern was Barry's self-esteem. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. This isn't the Special Olympics, iranitea. Watch it. We are all big boysand Barry can look after himself just fine without your mealy-mouthed blandishments. If your real experience of Barry's post had resembled what you say here, you would have joined in, and made us feel your participation in the reality he created by his post. Come into my sandbox, iranitea, I have a big dump-truck you can play with. You are going to get back to me, right? Nope, you are not making any sense. I tell you what I really like about Barry, do you want to know? He doesn't have a need to be liked or adored by anyone. He doesn't try to pull you to his side. He does his thing, and that's it. You are somewhere in your own constructed metaphysical smorgasbord, you are all about words and words and words, you are trying to pull, manipulate, partonize, living in your fantasy world, where your metaphysical system changes on the fly, according to your spiritual moods. You are never able to look into this seriously. Why this constant need to be in the center of everything? Why this constant need to pontificate your absurd theories you picked up in some book, not even understanding what they say. (You are using 1st person ontology in a completely wrong way) Emptybill is totally spot on, you are playing on the stage again, can't let go of this. And what do you care about how I relate to Buck or Barry? I know exactly how I relate to them, and so do they. Robin, do what you want, but don't have any illusions about some people here, that you could somehow suck them into your game. I mean after your Mother Teresa charity. yada yada Robin
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dear Diary
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Geeez, this is so so funny.  I am laughing so hard.  Off to the beach - I'll look for a job in September.  From: Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 3:58 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dear Diary  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: Iranitea1: Barry, excellent writing! Good parody, and spot on, it gave me the first laugh of the day... Robin1: And tell Buck too, iranitea, since you have made explicit your sympathy and support him in all that he is doing, that he should not be discouraged in his laudable moral crusade here on FFL. Your first laugh of the day? M-m-m: for me, laughter is an opinion-free zone. You should have had some laughs before this, iranitea. If you become pre-selective in your laughter (which jokes are said by the right person with the right party affiliation) I assure you, your soul will start to rust. This response to Barry was first-aid, comfort, compensation. It lacked the confidence of a response driven by pure appreciation. And therefore it is an insult to the writer. Iranitea2: Nope. It was totally genuine, innocent. You are just constructing all this. Btw. I live in a different time zone, and my laugh was in the morning, when I checked it on my phone. I laugh also about you, but you said I shouldn't pick fights with you. And, you demonstrate once more, that you don't really know me at all, your psychic powers are just bluff. Robin2: I ain't got none of dem dere psychic powersâme stay away from all dat. On the other hand I talk to the Personal God about how to tune into his omnisubjectivityâand you won't believe this, iranitea, but when I consulted him about this attribute, he said: STFU, Robin! There ain't no first-person ontologyâ*I, myself*, have trying to get enlightenedâI want that Impersonal God in me to manifest. So I don't have to be eternal and the source of everyone's existence from the point of view of a Subjectivity which is the enemy of the Unified Fieldâalthough I did plant some nice roses thereâNo one noticed them, however; they just kinda saw a creative nothingness. I saidâyou still there, iranitea?âto God (now somewhat nonplussed by the fact that even *he* is following the gods of FairfieldâI am sure it was Share who seduced him away from being just the Holy Trinityâit was so much simpler then): I am sorry to hear this, Big Guy: Here I was defending you and you are joining the enemy camp. I then continued (making sure he couldn't speak before I got my next question out): What about iranitea's latest post to me? Is he right that I never look seriously at all the metaphysical systems that I seem to represent, that I don't understand what I read, that I need to pontificate, that I want to be the centre of attention all the time? And God looked at me very severely (lots of darshan coming at me) and declared: He's dead right, Robbie Boy. And I ain't going to say another word to youâbecause you will turn it into one of your 'extraordinary experiences' [SL]âYou know: you talked to the Personal God and all that, and you are going to make a big deal of this at FFL. I just tell you, Robin, once again: You are headed for a greater fall than even when you found out you didn't like Unity Consciousness. Get it, Rob Baby? Now you apologize to iranitea, and I'll see you in the Dome. Robin to God: In the DOME? WTF, God? Oh, I see, you mean that metaphorically. OK, then. I will endeavour in the rest of this post to do what I can to win over iranitea and at the same time begin to be coherent, sincere, and consistent in all that I do and say and write from here on in. Thanks for the counselling session, GodâIt's just that I thought that omnisubjectivity, that that was something you were really into. Well, I guess I don't know anything about this first-person ontological stuff after all. F***me: I guess iranitea was right about *that* too. OK, then. By the way, Sir: good luck with the Atman trip. There was a silence, and then I couldn't help but blurt out: What if you don't like it, God? Will you be willing to return to your First Person Ontology? God to Robin: Look, Robbie Bobbie: I have read your goddamn posts at FFLâI am not going to get sucked into your game, OK? And that was it. I pretended to leave God's presenceâand He acted as if he was not still infinitely intimate to me as the level of my existenceâHe being his own existence. Back to your post, iranitea: Robin1: Your only concern was Barry's self-esteem. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. This isn't the Special Olympics, iranitea. Watch it. We are all big boysâand Barry can look after himself just fine without your mealy-mouthed
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dear Diary
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Robin3: Seems about the most interesting and penetrating thing you have ever said to me. Gives me something to think about, iranitea. That stern and judgmental patronizing. I will have to watch that, because my aim always is to keep the love going (even underneath the irony:for me, my love fuels my irony). I could even in a second love Barry. But he won't let that happen. And either, it seems, will you. But I think in this post, especially, you have done your best. And that will have to do. I have an intuition you are an interesting and thoughtful person. But we both need to perform at our best, I think. I will do my homework here. And perhaps we can meet again and find ourselves enjoying this Creation within which we find ourselveswithout having any choice in the matterexisting. I figure Creation, it was a good idea. And no doubt you are too, iranitea. See, Robin, I am running out of time, having to do still some preparations for my trip and finish some job here before I go. I just had to install a new OS which I was downloading at night, and yes, I have a job, I simply have no time now for any kind of long on going conversation. We'll see when I return, but then not anymore from Persia ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM, the Dome Badge, and Religious Practices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: I know many people who go to the dome and I cannot think of a single one who is controlled by the TMO. The whole idea seems ludicrous to me. I think it was cooked up by people who don't live here and have no real clue about the way things are in Fairfield. The TMO, through the dome programs (for which no charge is made), is in fact performing a service for the community. The reason the malcontents can't recognize this is because they can only see through the lens of their own negativity. That's rubbish and a prejudice. Ask Buck, ask me. I know many people who have made this experience, and I have made it myself. I my case it is long time back, but it's first hand experience. Feste, you are just in denial. If you have no negative experience, it is nice for you, you just never came into any conflict yourself, so I am glad for you. I just recently ran into an old friend, he is still fully in the movement, and he was shocked that he was denied access to the domes, after 40 years in TM, being a governor and belonging to a prominent movement group. The denial of access was a pure act of punishment, for something nobody here on FFL would consider a serious issue. It is because of him that I re-published this video on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiKZjq0vTWg I had taken it off already, when seemingly Bucks case had been resolved, but as long a access to the domes is used as a sanction, as a punishment, I will leave it on the net, to warn everybody. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Tea wrote: As long as people feel this commitment to go to the domes, or as long as they want to participate in the common group program, so long the movement will have you in their hands, they will be able to control people. My reply: Tea, I'm sorry that you've had such a bad experience with the TMO. I wish there were something even now I could do in some zany way, to make amends. Maybe something will come to me. Same for Buck. Share, like many here I had good and also bad experiences with the TMO. Life is a mix of many things. That I left was utimately good for me, and I think it came in the right moment. But truthfully, I do not want to be part of a movement that is oppressive in this particular way. Why do they use the group program to put pressure on peoples lifes and faith? This to me is not an acceptable policy. So my decission was and is, to not put myself at the mercy of the likes of Bevan and the Rajas, even though I may know some of them personally. If you are happy there, Share, fine. But basically, given the situation as it is, you will always be vulnerable. As Feste says so aptly, as long as they own the house, they can do with you what they want. (i.e. deny access for whatever reason they like) Meanwhile I want to address what you say above because it relates to what you describe as unforgiveable. I simply want to say that I go to the Dome. AND I do not feel that the TMO has me in their hands nor are controlling me. In fact, if I ponder about it, I don't even think they want to control me.  Wouldn't that be silly anyway, given increased field independence with TM? If they wouldn't want to control people, why do they then set up these strange rules? Share, at the moment you 'fit in', and there is no problem. But at the moment they would get on you for any of the other activities you have been doing, Ammachi, your interest in other techniques of emotional release, Arunachala (if you would ever want to travel there), all these things could become an issue of conlict at a time. And depending how important the group program is for you this conflict could become existential. It has been so for many people for many years. Again I'm sorry for your bad experience with TMO. You do seem mostly at peace about it. Yep. But it upsets me if my friends I have known for decades, are still in this situation. That is why I sympathize with Buck, because I have been in exactly the same situation for years. I'm grateful for that. And that you're here. And that you've been willing to engage with such a TBer as me (-: I never felt any hostility from you Share. I feel hostility only from people who call me purposefully negative. But they may be forgiven. They don't know. Enjoy your life, Share. Everything will be fine for you I feel. From: iranitea no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 9:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM, the Dome Badge, and Religious Practices  When I first signed the agreement form, it as just short before we received the TM initiator initiation, I thought that it was a mere formality, and I thought that the term purity of the teaching
[FairfieldLife] RIP Ananda Bhaskar - Maitreya Ishwara
He was a friend, whom I met in 1993 in Lucknow, and we 'connected', at the time called Bhaskar. Later he became a master and set up an ashram in New Zealand. He died on 14 July 2012. http://www.oshonews.com/2012/07/anand-bhaskar-maitreya-ishwara/ http://www.ishwara.com/
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM, the Dome Badge, and Religious Practices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: The examples you cite are not of people being controlled by the TMO. They are examples of people being excluded from the dome, which is quite different. No one is being controlled. People are making choices, that's all. If someone excludes you from their club, do you feel controlled? Depends, if the club is the place where I live my life, and if the club makes demands on my life style, and quite possible on my inner attitude, AND make this clear to me in unmistakeble terms, the execute control. TM is more than just a club they joined, which could be substituted by any other club around the corner at any time. It's a lifestyle, and it's a beliefsystem as well. You will notice this once you leave. I doubt it. Rejected, perhaps, but that's something else. I don't know why people feel so bitter about it. It's not bitterness, it's my experience and my opinion. If the club they want to join excludes them, they are free to join another one. It's a matter of freedom of choice, not coercion. You have never thought yourself into this situation. That's why your argument is so superficial. People love Maharishi, it's not just a club, and you could rejoin a club any time. A more apt comparision would be a relationship, a marriage that breaks up. People are literally married to the movement. The movement is in their brains, not just through meditation (that's the good thing), but also through everything they know and believe. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I know many people who go to the dome and I cannot think of a single one who is controlled by the TMO. The whole idea seems ludicrous to me. I think it was cooked up by people who don't live here and have no real clue about the way things are in Fairfield. The TMO, through the dome programs (for which no charge is made), is in fact performing a service for the community. The reason the malcontents can't recognize this is because they can only see through the lens of their own negativity. That's rubbish and a prejudice. Ask Buck, ask me. I know many people who have made this experience, and I have made it myself. I my case it is long time back, but it's first hand experience. Feste, you are just in denial. If you have no negative experience, it is nice for you, you just never came into any conflict yourself, so I am glad for you. I just recently ran into an old friend, he is still fully in the movement, and he was shocked that he was denied access to the domes, after 40 years in TM, being a governor and belonging to a prominent movement group. The denial of access was a pure act of punishment, for something nobody here on FFL would consider a serious issue. It is because of him that I re-published this video on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiKZjq0vTWg I had taken it off already, when seemingly Bucks case had been resolved, but as long a access to the domes is used as a sanction, as a punishment, I will leave it on the net, to warn everybody. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Tea wrote: As long as people feel this commitment to go to the domes, or as long as they want to participate in the common group program, so long the movement will have you in their hands, they will be able to control people. My reply: Tea, I'm sorry that you've had such a bad experience with the TMO. I wish there were something even now I could do in some zany way, to make amends. Maybe something will come to me. Same for Buck. Share, like many here I had good and also bad experiences with the TMO. Life is a mix of many things. That I left was utimately good for me, and I think it came in the right moment. But truthfully, I do not want to be part of a movement that is oppressive in this particular way. Why do they use the group program to put pressure on peoples lifes and faith? This to me is not an acceptable policy. So my decission was and is, to not put myself at the mercy of the likes of Bevan and the Rajas, even though I may know some of them personally. If you are happy there, Share, fine. But basically, given the situation as it is, you will always be vulnerable. As Feste says so aptly, as long as they own the house, they can do with you what they want. (i.e. deny access for whatever reason they like) Meanwhile I want to address what you say above because it relates to what you describe as unforgiveable. I simply want to say that I go to the Dome. AND I do not feel that the TMO has me in their hands nor are controlling me. In fact, if I ponder about it, I don't even think they want to control
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Robin Carlsen Story
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__ebR_8UKAYfeature=related http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/bombay.html http://ninamartyris.blogspot.de/2007/04/leonard-cohen-came-looking-in-mumbaiand.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: As I suggested earlier, I'm stayin' out of this one. :-) All I did was forward a music video, under the same Subject title that the person who sent it to me in email did. FFL personalities aside, I thought it was a perfect soundtrack to the groupie metaphor I've been proposing lately to describe common behavior in spiritual groups. I just loved the almost-drooling adoration captured by the three Shangri-Las, and then the twist as the object of their adoration rides in on a bike. That was funny! I don't recognize the guy -- probably some TV personality or host who was popular in that day -- but he captured perfectly the kinda guy who believes that if he dresses like a macho biker, he'll be perceived as a macho biker, even though he's prob- ably gayer than Liberace. And, of course, that's how groupie adoration works -- they're in love with the projected image, not the reality. Here's a followup soundtrack song on the same theme of spiritual groupies. I like this one because it captures the *polarity* that develops when someone new develops a following among members of an established spiritual groups. Here the groupie thang is split along male/female dividing lines, but in real spiritual groups it's usually split more along dogma/purity of the teaching lines. One faction drools over the flashy new wannabee guru, and another faction hates him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhH1MkzU7dg And at the same time, there is a wiser majority of spiritual seekers standing on the periphery, shaking their heads in dismay at both factions, finding it difficult to comprehend how *any* of them could get so worked up about such a nobody, and muttering under their breaths about Incredibly Low Standards on both sides. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Jul 31, 2012, at 3:56 PM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Someone just sent this to me in email, suggesting unkindly that the four people in it reminded him of FFL lately. I make no comment whatsoever on that, but forward the link because it made me chuckle, and might do the same for you. Watching RWC work a new bunch of TMers, one cannot help be reminded of previous incidents with innocent MIU students way back when. It's too uncannily familiar. It's interesting that someone who denounced the TM Org, it's founder and allegedly found Jesus - is grooming TMers again like an out-of-jail pedophile at a playground. I guess when it really comes down to it, TMers are the only crowd that fall for the routine (I'm excluding possible Opus Dei fans here!).
[FairfieldLife] Back to black
Once more I will have to take a longer break from. I wish you all a good time, don't take things too seriously in my absence. Can't say exactly when I come back, but not before 2 month. It was an enjoyable time with you mostly, sometimes a little heated with some, but I felt also some really good things came out. Now iranitea will leave for good http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJAfLE39ZZ8
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: snip My bet is that many people who have been conned into spending thousands and thousands of dollars (not to mention countless man-hours bouncing on their butts) for what even they admit are a few English-language phrases they could have gotten verbatim from a $3.95 paperback of the Yoga Sutras might just be a tad... uh...invested in their investment. They might come up with all *sorts* of justifications to keep from ever addressing the alternate possibility that they were simply conned. OK, since Barry's doubling down on these deliberately misleading statements, let's take them apart. First, thousands and thousands of dollars is not even technically true of what I paid: the least Barry's phrase could mean is $4,000 (two thousand plus two thousand). Still thousands. My TM-Sidhis course was $3,000. People whose mission it is to mislead know how to choose their words to give an impression contrary to fact. The truth is, depending on which time you started, and which kind of course you took (available at the time), you paid more. The first 6 month enlightenment courses were around 10 000$. Precondition was to be a TM teacher, which again cost you at least the same amount. Then, if you were unlucky, you didn't even learn the sidhis, which were only developed at the time, so to get the sidhis, you had to visit yet another course, which could cost you just as much. The first citizen sidha courses required sidhi prep courses, between 4 and 8 weeks, just rounding. (no 'instructions' there). Then another 4 weeks for the real sidhi course. With time, when the movement wanted to spread the sidhis even further, all these requirements were dropped, and center sidhi courses came into being, only requiring 2 weeks in-residence for 'flying'. This was a heavily toned down course, some sidhis were dropped, the required time for practise was dropped as well. That must have been the time when you joined. Countless man-hours is just vague enough to be beyond explicit challenge, but the *impression* it conveys is misleading. It's nevertheless the truth The part that's so misleading it amounts to a lie is about the fee for the TM-Sidhis course having paid for a few English-language phrases they could have gotten verbatim from a $3.95 paperback. The phrases have been in fact collected from such books. They haven't been collected from one single book, but from a variety of books, all out in print. The truth is that exactly such books, have been read out by CP's on the first six month courses, which kick-started the sidhis. Barry has proved himself so untrustworthy I wouldn't accept that the phrases used in the TM-Sidhis are to be found verbatim in a $3.95 paperback without confirmation from a reliable source. There are many published translations of Patanjali; whether any of them translate the siddhis sutras verbatim as they're given in the TM-Sidhis course is possible but doubtful. Again: It's a collection from different sources, but then in no way essentially different. Compassion is still compassion, friendliness is still friendliness, sun, moon and inner light are still the same in all translations. No TM copyright attached to it. The truth is Barry is completely right. In any case, even if there is a translation that does, it's irrelevant, not at all the shocker Barry pretends it is. The real shocker is the lie that all the fee for the TM-Sidhis course pays for is those phrases. What my $3,000 fee paid for was 5 or so hours of instruction in how to use those phrases, in a specially set up room at my local TM center, on each of two weekend days for six consecutive weekends (somewhere around 60 hours total); Big laugh Those 60 hours are what other people might call brainwashing. I'll be more liberal and just say, that they are unconnected to the practice of the technique. IIRC all instructions, including the sidhis, where on an audio tape, which we had to hear with earphones as they where so secret. The instruction consisted only of the names of the sutras (in english or your own language) and a very simple instruction of how to repeat them, in which intervals. That tape was hardly an hour. Oh yes, there was the usual TM puja preceding it. The flying sutra instruction was slightly more sophisticated, but also less than an hour. All other lectures, usually video taped, was philosophizing around the sidhis, and Maharishis concepts. None of it an instruction for practice. PLUS two weeks of intensive instruction in residence at MIU/MUM to learn the Yogic Flying technique. That's a total of at least 100 solid hours of instruction AND two weeks of room and board They usually purchased out of season hotels, bargained the prices, so that we, at a point 200 cp's had to pretend to leave the course location by buses, to press the
[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: Here's a question for you -- if I (trained as a TM teacher by Maharishi) were to teach someone to meditate and teach them according to the exact instructions he told me to impart to students, but changed only one thing -- the mantra -- would it be the same technique, or a different one? What if I taught them to use the mantra Ram (the one Maharishi *started* teaching TM with, for everyone) instead of one from the latest official list? Would it be different than TM, or the same? It would be different than TM as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi for decades, as Barry knows but figures Emily doesn't. This is a very deceptive answer. The truth is, as is obvious to any real TM teacher, that each teacher carries the mantra list that he got on his course, for the rest of his life. If anybody got to be a teacher before a certain time, like the early courses in Rishikesh, he had indeed only two mantra's to give, and if he got recertified (I didn't), he still would only give out these two mantra's today. For decades at least, if not until now, people get different mantras, according to the mantra list at the time of their teachers TTC, as the OFFICIAL TM. And one further truth is, that all people get the SAME mantra with their first advanced technique. (Their may have been some exceptions to that rule, that the original mantra was combined with the adjunct 'namah', but by and large it was substituted completely, which also means that after a few advanced techniques, all share the same mantra.) Now that, and a few other observations should make it clear, that the policy of handing out many different mantras, was simply to obscure and deceive the public (It came about in Norway after newspapers started to discuss that all TM meditators had the same mantra). It was never a real requirement.
[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: Barry's lying. I responded to that question. The response included pointing out that the question itself was designed to mislead. The TMO charges high fees in wealthy countries and low or no fees in poor ones. So, is India a poor country or a wealthy one? Do you feel that the following rates have been subsidised by the west?These fees may not sound to be much if converting Rupees to Dollars, but they still are a lot for the average Indian worker.http://www.peace-movement.net/participation.jsp http://www.peace-movement.net/participation.jsp All in all, it is easy to point to some obscure country, and say, well we spend all the money for poor countries, but where is the documentation? Also, $1,500 is well within the means of many people in this country; they'll easily spend that much and more on a week's vacation. And if someone really wants to learn and simply can't afford it, the TMO will usually work something out with them. Typical answer: you have to really want it, and then you can also afford it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM
Why is it 'incorrect' if you say something wrong, deceptive but a blatant lie if Barry does so? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Here's a question for you -- if I (trained as a TM teacher by Maharishi) were to teach someone to meditate and teach them according to the exact instructions he told me to impart to students, but changed only one thing -- the mantra -- would it be the same technique, or a different one? What if I taught them to use the mantra Ram (the one Maharishi *started* teaching TM with, for everyone) instead of one from the latest official list? Would it be different than TM, or the same? It would be different than TM as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi for decades, as Barry knows but figures Emily doesn't. This is a very deceptive answer. Well, no, it isn't. It may be *incorrect* in the case of TM teachers who got only the two early Rishikesh mantras and are still giving them out today, but how many such teachers are there? IOW, it's a minor inaccuracy. First of all it may not be 'incorrect', it certainly IS incorrect, wrong, false and misleading. And it is not minor, because you can not determine how active early TM teachers still are. This is regarding any teacher until 1969. Some of the most successful TM teachers were/are from this time. These were the mantras - if everything followed the usual course - the Beatles got. Many of these early TM teachers initiated many thousands into TM. Many were early scientists who made research on TM, I know one of them, who is now an independent teacher. Many had charisma later TM teachers who were on the mass courses of La Antilla or Mallorca didn't have. And even if they are just a 'minor inaccuracy' they prove the principle, what, so it seems you easily lose out of sight: One (or two) mantras are really enough. And that's all that Barry was trying to say. This is further substantiated by my further comment about the advanced techniques. Why have only one mantra in the advanced technique and 16 mantras for TM? The truth is the context, in which TM is presented: In many of the mantra oriented traditions, actually only one mantra is given. Or rather, stating it more clearly: all receive the same mantra. Many of these traditions, like Surat Sabhd Yoga, or Rhadasoami give this mantra in group initiations, the mantra may vary from group to group, but initiation by a master is a necessity. Here in these groups, the context is a different one from TM. The 'story' is that the master imbibes the mantra with power, and the mantra connects therefore the master and the disciple. Even though many TM teachers would subscribe to such a view, as they believe, that the power of the mantra comes through the holy tradition and more specifically GD, this is not the official TM story. It's too mystic, not scientific enough. Another story had to be created, and that is that the mantras are secret, and were just revived by GD, and had to be individually selected. This doesn't explain the need for the puja in TM, but it very well explains the need of personal instruction. Thus an old story (context) is substituted by a newer invention of the story, but unfortunately this story works only as long, as people don't know the secrets, that is the varying mantras over time, and the method of selection. In a way, the variety of mantras in TM is just a concession to this story, and the remedy is the first advanced technique, which is again just one mantra for all. My feeling is that this 'story' doesn't hold true for the internet age, where you can't just keep these things, (mantras, method of selection) secret anymore, that is to say, the story doesn't work anymore. I find it also interesting, that while TM stresses so much on individual instruction, that the siddhis clearly mark the way to group instruction. People seem to think that their mantra couldn't work, unless they receive it in privacy, not the same is true for the siddhis, which most people received via audiotape. The truth is, as is obvious to any real TM teacher, that each teacher carries the mantra list that he got on his course, for the rest of his life. If anybody got to be a teacher before a certain time, like the early courses in Rishikesh, he had indeed only two mantra's to give, and if he got recertified (I didn't), he still would only give out these two mantra's today. For decades at least, if not until now, people get different mantras, according to the mantra list at the time of their teachers TTC, as the OFFICIAL TM. And one further truth is, that all people get the SAME mantra with their first advanced technique. (Their may have been some exceptions to that rule, that the original mantra was combined with the adjunct 'namah', but by and large
[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Barry's lying. I responded to that question. The response included pointing out that the question itself was designed to mislead. The TMO charges high fees in wealthy countries and low or no fees in poor ones. So, is India a poor country or a wealthy one? Do you feel that the following rates have been subsidised by the west?These fees may not sound to be much if converting Rupees to Dollars, but they still are a lot for the average Indian worker http://www.peace-movement.net/participation.jsp http://www.peace-movement.net/participation.jsp These amounts aren't fees to learn TM. They're donation amounts to be a participant in this peace movement, which appears to be a new program of the TMO in India. It's not new at all, it was the first step by Girish to separate the Indian movement from the west, and of course the membership fees are a way of charging for TM All in all, it is easy to point to some obscure country, and say, well we spend all the money for poor countries, but where is the documentation? I didn't say spend ALL the money for poor countries. That certainly isn't the case. See my last paragraph below. Don't get hooked up on small formulations. As to documentation, I don't have any. However, on various TM forums and elsewhere I've heard people who have taught in India and other poor countries say that they charged a very low or no fee. Perhaps they're all lying, and a fee equivalent to that in the U.S. is charged everywhere. I've never heard anyone speak up to that effect, though. This was usually during special campaigns, during certain time periods. You won't find american teachers now teaching TM in India. It was also true in the Philippines, but all during a limited period of time. Also, $1,500 is well within the means of many people in this country; they'll easily spend that much and more on a week's vacation. And if someone really wants to learn and simply can't afford it, the TMO will usually work something out with them. Typical answer: you have to really want it, and then you can also afford it. More or less true of just about anything, no? You deleted the comment of Barry's I was responding to, so let's put it back in for context: As it was irrelevant, your favorite word, right? Like the question all of the TM supporters are avoiding like the plague -- WHY would an org that claims it has the solution to all the prob- lems of life want to charge so much for it that very few will ever start? I submit that my response to this, quoted above, was accurate: TM does not cost so much that very few will ever start. In the U.S., the fee is steep but not prohibitive for many; in poorer countries, unless definitive testimony to the contrary is found, the fee is significantly less than it is in this country. In other European countries the fee is even higher (if the movement still exists). You cannot see the fee outside of the contemporary context. If you want to sell one liter of water in a desert, you may get what you are asking for. But not if somebody stands next to you giving water freely. The question is, why should anybody in his senses, make an extraordinary effort learning something, he can get for cheaper somewhere else? Especially when it is not clear if your 'product' has really such an advantage. Through the internet, people compare more, there are more offers on the market. I just have recently initiated 2 persons into TM for free, who wanted to learn it, but wouldn't have wanted to turn out the amount of money it takes for two people to learn. They are not poor, they have well to do jobs. It's a question of the relation to other costs. You cannot make a statement, like, if they really want it they can do it. (For me it was an experiment, like a flashback in time, btw. they did well.) And I would be banned in TM for doing this. Most of us on this forum, including myself, however, would much prefer to see lower fees in this and other wealthy countries, along with a lot less of the costly ceremonial stuff and nitwit promotion and absurd projects. Far too much useless and even counterproductive crap is subsidized by the high fees.
[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: So, is India a poor country or a wealthy one? Do you feel that the following rates have been subsidised by the west?These fees may not sound to be much if converting Rupees to Dollars, but they still are a lot for the average Indian worker http://www.peace-movement.net/participation.jsp http://www.peace-movement.net/participation.jsp These amounts aren't fees to learn TM. They're donation amounts to be a participant in this peace movement, which appears to be a new program of the TMO in India. It's not new at all, it was the first step by Girish to separate the Indian movement from the west, Which happened when, exactly? It's written on the webpage. and of course the membership fees are a way of charging for TM I believe you're mistaken on that point. I don't think those fees cover instruction. Believe what you want, they certainly are. All in all, it is easy to point to some obscure country, and say, well we spend all the money for poor countries, but where is the documentation? I didn't say spend ALL the money for poor countries. That certainly isn't the case. See my last paragraph below. Don't get hooked up on small formulations. Then don't exaggerate and put words in my mouth. I didn't put anything in your mouth. I said, it is easy to point to some obscure country, etc. Where is any attribution to you? It's a general attribution, don't play foul game. As to documentation, I don't have any. However, on various TM forums and elsewhere I've heard people who have taught in India and other poor countries say that they charged a very low or no fee. Perhaps they're all lying, and a fee equivalent to that in the U.S. is charged everywhere. I've never heard anyone speak up to that effect, though. This was usually during special campaigns, during certain time periods. You won't find american teachers now teaching TM in India. It was also true in the Philippines, but all during a limited period of time. So you claim everyone in every country is normally charged an equivalent fee to that charged in the U.S.? Now you are putting things into my mouth. I am not saying that everywhere the fee is equivalent to that charged in the USA. In some countries it is even considerably more. According to income this is in fact impossible to compare in a country like India, where for the middle class, it might be a comparable fee, but for the big mass of poor people, it is even immensely more. In any case, it doesn't give a compensatory legitimacy to high fees in the west. Also, $1,500 is well within the means of many people in this country; they'll easily spend that much and more on a week's vacation. And if someone really wants to learn and simply can't afford it, the TMO will usually work something out with them. Typical answer: you have to really want it, and then you can also afford it. More or less true of just about anything, no? You deleted the comment of Barry's I was responding to, so let's put it back in for context: As it was irrelevant, your favorite word, right? It was very relevant to my response to Barry. You keep pushing around this word relevance, but who judges it's relevance, except yourself? It all depends on what you deem important or not. You continue playing this petty game, and overlook the import of the whole. You only concentrate on certain unimportant parts of Barry's posts, some rhetorical hook ups, and cover up the real points of his posts, which are obviously true. In the same way you go into complete denial, repeating that something is irrelevant to your question or what Barry said, in order to escape the real questions. It's lame tactics. Like the question all of the TM supporters are avoiding like the plague -- WHY would an org that claims it has the solution to all the prob- lems of life want to charge so much for it that very few will ever start? I submit that my response to this, quoted above, was accurate: TM does not cost so much that very few will ever start. In the U.S., the fee is steep but not prohibitive for many; in poorer countries, unless definitive testimony to the contrary is found, the fee is significantly less than it is in this country. In other European countries the fee is even higher (if the movement still exists). You cannot see the fee outside of the contemporary context. If you want to sell one liter of water in a desert, you may get what you are asking for. But not if somebody stands next to you giving water freely. The question is, why should anybody in his senses, make an extraordinary effort learning something, he can get for cheaper somewhere else? Especially when it is not clear if your 'product' has really such an advantage. Through the internet,
[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: Why is it 'incorrect' if you say something wrong, deceptive but a blatant lie if Barry does so? I don't say things with the intention to deceive, first of all, although I may say something wrong inadvertently. Can't argue with that, because, unlike others I am not into mind reading. But you should also be clear that it is obvious that you try to diminish points that are unfavorable to your arguments, as in this case. The point is that there are teachers, who still teach in this way, they are quite a few, so there is still a good chance to get one of those two mantras, and let me calculate, if the amount of teachers from that time would be 50%, it would be about 8 times higher than getting any other mantra, (16 divided by 2), but let's assume it's just slightly over 10%, then chances are that you get the mantra Ram are about as much as that of any other of the later mantras. ;-) Second, not everything Barry says that is wrong is a blatant lie. Sometimes he gets things wrong inadvertently as well. Here you get so boring that I find it hard to take you seriously. If the above confuses you, please consult Mr. Dictionary for the meaning of to lie and to deceive. And maybe you conduct Mr. Dictionary about the difference between the active verb 'to deceive' and the adjective 'deceptive'. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Here's a question for you -- if I (trained as a TM teacher by Maharishi) were to teach someone to meditate and teach them according to the exact instructions he told me to impart to students, but changed only one thing -- the mantra -- would it be the same technique, or a different one? What if I taught them to use the mantra Ram (the one Maharishi *started* teaching TM with, for everyone) instead of one from the latest official list? Would it be different than TM, or the same? It would be different than TM as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi for decades, as Barry knows but figures Emily doesn't. This is a very deceptive answer. Well, no, it isn't. It may be *incorrect* in the case of TM teachers who got only the two early Rishikesh mantras and are still giving them out today, but how many such teachers are there? IOW, it's a minor inaccuracy. First of all it may not be 'incorrect', it certainly IS incorrect, wrong, false and misleading. Again your lack of fluency in English is causing problems, with regard to the It may be... construction. Why again? Stop patronizing me and making unfounded assumptions. Let me say it slightly differently: Even if I got that one point wrong, it was minor, because there aren't many from those days still teaching. Both versions of that statement acknowledge the inaccuracy. Well, no, it isn't referred to your deceptive characterization. And it is not minor, because you can not determine how active early TM teachers still are. This is regarding any teacher until 1969. Some of the most successful TM teachers were/are from this time. These were the mantras - if everything followed the usual course - the Beatles got. How many of them are still teaching? Because Barry's question had to do with the present. How many are teaching at all? How much is TM still being taught? And then: many of them are teachers of the first hour, they are Rajas today. Many of these early TM teachers initiated many thousands into TM. Many were early scientists who made research on TM, I know one of them, who is now an independent teacher. Many had charisma later TM teachers who were on the mass courses of La Antilla or Mallorca didn't have. Fine, but irrelevant. Everything you go on to say is also irrelevant to the question Barry asked. Not irrelevant to their influence today. And even if they are just a 'minor inaccuracy' they prove the principle, what, so it seems you easily lose out of sight: One (or two) mantras are really enough. And that's all that Barry was trying to say. Well, no, it isn't what he was trying to say. (I'm sure he'll say it was *now*, but it wasn't to start with.) Yes he clearly said it. And you know it. This is further substantiated by my further comment about the advanced techniques. Why have only one mantra in the advanced technique and 16 mantras for TM? I retained my original bija mantra when I got my advanced technique (I have only one). I said there are exceptions. But with a second advanced technique, you are likely to lose that one, with the third you are almost sure. So why you never got any more? The truth is the context, in which TM is presented: In many
[FairfieldLife] Hello FFL -
I think it's fair to introduce myself, well as you can probably see from my handle, I use an anonymous one. Irani tea or chai is a tea from Hyderabad, (I actually didn't know till I looked it up yesterday. But I know it from drinking, hehe.) I do this for several reasons, one is that I want to simply be free to say what I want to say, but personally respecting the choices of close friends and not hurting them. Another one is, that I do not want to be associated with certain topics, as has happened in the past. One third, not less important is, to not be put into a box; like he is pro-TM, he is anti-TM, he is a TBB etc. So, I also believe in reincarnation, not just in the usual sense of the word, but also on Internet forums. So I am not new here, some of you I know for a long time. To break through my policy a bit, I will tell you a bit of what I have done in the past. In one incarnation I created this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiKZjq0vTWg I think most of you have already seen it, it came out of a dialog, we had at the time, centering around something Buck brought up. It was already online before, with 3000 hits, and has now again over 400, you may just look at it again, to give it another boost. At a later incarnation I have discussed various topics with some people, trying to address typical TM-hook-ups, as the nature of transcendence, hazy vs. real, and the roots of TM in traditional japa, and why TM is not in any way more special. I have done so to understand the (con)text that surrounds TM and its own dynamic. In my previous incarnation, I was shocked to notice, how long term TM-ers, who profess to be experts on TM in many ways, are actually lacking any basic sense of discrimination. Something that usually comes only by having actual *life* experiences with people, which is something people have got who paid their dues in the movement, or any other spiritual surrounding for a longer time. Not having experienced oneself directly the dangers that come with extended meditations, like virtually going crazy, you would have known, if you had any experience in real life in similar situations, when for example friends are involved. There would be signs, red flags, one notices in people, and any person with a realistic, down to earth sense would know. This is actually the lack, when only discussing in Internet forums, and drawing most information from there, than from actual places and people, or simply watching teachers just giving a 3 days checking, without sitting through the various problems that may actually come up at these. So, in a way, I feel like a fresh white paper, no need of having to continue any old quibbles. OTOH, I am not afraid either, not of anybody here, I think I have a clear stand.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Kill The Whistleblower - My pitch for a new reality TV show
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Note: My agent and his attorneys have advised me to state for the record that this idea was *not* inspired by the way that former TM teachers who reveal embarrassing truths about the TM movement and its secrets are treated on the Internet by that group's ardent supporters and apologists. Any resemblance between this process and the proposed idea for a TV series is coincidental and unintentional, if for no other reason than because no one has yet invented a way to throw actual rocks on Internet forums. LOL
[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: Why is it 'incorrect' if you say something wrong, deceptive but a blatant lie if Barry does so? I don't say things with the intention to deceive, first of all, although I may say something wrong inadvertently. Can't argue with that, because, unlike others I am not into mind reading. But you should also be clear that it is obvious that you try to diminish points that are unfavorable to your arguments, Oh, that's very funny. You make it sound as though that weren't what everyone, including yourself, does in debating a disagreement. as in this case. The point is that there are teachers, who still teach in this way, they are quite a few, so there is still a good chance to get one of those two mantras, and let me calculate, if the amount of teachers from that time would be 50%, Fifty percent of what? Of all people starting TM at any given frame of time. I'll try to explain it to you again: It is more or less just a graphic description of the 'weight' of those two, supposedly unused mantras (based on Ram) still being around. If you count together the 16 newer (shakti related) mantras and the two old, you get 18. 100 divided by 18 is 5.555.. This would be the percentage of distribution of any mantra, if all the mantras were equally distributed, not regarding the different age groups and distribution schemes. That would require 5.55% of the old Ram based mantras, and since there are two, this figure would have to be doubled, so if 11.11% of initiations would be by 'old' teachers (from before 1969), then the chance to learn one of the old mantras is as high as learning any of the new ones. Got that? Now the percentage of old teachers may be less than 11.11%, chances that you learn one of the old mantras is still considerable. In any case, there is no reason to deny it or neglect it in any way. it would be about 8 times higher than getting any other mantra, (16 divided by 2), but let's assume it's just slightly over 10%, then chances are that you get the mantra Ram are about as much as that of any other of the later mantras. ;-) I doubt there's anywhere near that many pre-1969 teachers currently teaching. Second, not everything Barry says that is wrong is a blatant lie. Sometimes he gets things wrong inadvertently as well. Here you get so boring that I find it hard to take you seriously. Yeah, it can be really boring to have your points rebutted. LOL If the above confuses you, please consult Mr. Dictionary for the meaning of to lie and to deceive. And maybe you conduct Mr. Dictionary about the difference between the active verb 'to deceive' and the adjective 'deceptive'. Well, thank you for clarifying that you didn't intend to suggest I was attempting to deceive. I didn't suggest it, which doesn't mean you couldn't have been. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Here's a question for you -- if I (trained as a TM teacher by Maharishi) were to teach someone to meditate and teach them according to the exact instructions he told me to impart to students, but changed only one thing -- the mantra -- would it be the same technique, or a different one? What if I taught them to use the mantra Ram (the one Maharishi *started* teaching TM with, for everyone) instead of one from the latest official list? Would it be different than TM, or the same? It would be different than TM as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi for decades, as Barry knows but figures Emily doesn't. This is a very deceptive answer. Well, no, it isn't. It may be *incorrect* in the case of TM teachers who got only the two early Rishikesh mantras and are still giving them out today, but how many such teachers are there? IOW, it's a minor inaccuracy. First of all it may not be 'incorrect', it certainly IS incorrect, wrong, false and misleading. Again your lack of fluency in English is causing problems, with regard to the It may be... construction. Why again? Stop patronizing me and making unfounded assumptions. Find an English teacher to explain it to you. Let me say it slightly differently: Even if I got that one point wrong, it was minor, because there aren't many from those days still teaching. Both versions of that statement acknowledge the inaccuracy. Well, no, it isn't referred to your
[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Barry's lying. I responded to that question. The response included pointing out that the question itself was designed to mislead. The TMO charges high fees in wealthy countries and low or no fees in poor ones. So, is India a poor country or a wealthy one? Do you feel that the following rates have been subsidised by the west?These fees may not sound to be much if converting Rupees to Dollars, but they still are a lot for the average Indian worker http://www.peace-movement.net/participation.jsp http://www.peace-movement.net/participation.jsp These amounts aren't fees to learn TM. They're donation amounts to be a participant in this peace movement, which appears to be a new program of the TMO in India. It's not new at all, it was the first step by Girish to separate the Indian movement from the west, Which happened when, exactly? Can't you read? http://www.peace-movement.net/Inauguration.jsp and of course the membership fees are a way of charging for TM I believe you're mistaken on that point. I don't think those fees cover instruction. In some countries it is done that way, the instruction fees are membership fees. But the burden of proof is on to you for your claim, that the high TM fees in the west are subsidizing those of the people of poor nations. It's your claim, not mine. You may also look here: http://www.peace-movement.net/pprogram.jsp Plans and Programmes for Participants Maharishi World Peace Movement will do the following in the interest of the Participants: 1. Well designed informative and interactive web site www.peace-movement.net will provide all details on various plans and programmes of Maharishi World Peace Movement. 2. Will occasionally send E-News Letter or printed News Letter to all articipants containing plans, programmes and news up date. 3. Will make arrangements for learning Transcendental Meditation, Sidhi Programme, Yogic Flying and Advance Techniques. All in all, it is easy to point to some obscure country, and say, well we spend all the money for poor countries, but where is the documentation? I didn't say spend ALL the money for poor countries. That certainly isn't the case. See my last paragraph below. Don't get hooked up on small formulations. Then don't exaggerate and put words in my mouth. As to documentation, I don't have any. However, on various TM forums and elsewhere I've heard people who have taught in India and other poor countries say that they charged a very low or no fee. Perhaps they're all lying, and a fee equivalent to that in the U.S. is charged everywhere. I've never heard anyone speak up to that effect, though. This was usually during special campaigns, during certain time periods. You won't find american teachers now teaching TM in India. It was also true in the Philippines, but all during a limited period of time. So you claim everyone in every country is normally charged an equivalent fee to that charged in the U.S.? Also, $1,500 is well within the means of many people in this country; they'll easily spend that much and more on a week's vacation. And if someone really wants to learn and simply can't afford it, the TMO will usually work something out with them. Typical answer: you have to really want it, and then you can also afford it. More or less true of just about anything, no? You deleted the comment of Barry's I was responding to, so let's put it back in for context: As it was irrelevant, your favorite word, right? It was very relevant to my response to Barry. Like the question all of the TM supporters are avoiding like the plague -- WHY would an org that claims it has the solution to all the prob- lems of life want to charge so much for it that very few will ever start? I submit that my response to this, quoted above, was accurate: TM does not cost so much that very few will ever start. In the U.S., the fee is steep but not prohibitive for many; in poorer countries, unless definitive testimony to the contrary is found, the fee is significantly less than it is in this country. In other European countries the fee is even higher (if the movement still exists). You cannot see the fee outside of the contemporary context. If you want to sell one liter of water in a desert, you may get what you are asking for. But not if somebody stands next to you giving water freely. The question is, why should anybody in his
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: Are you the old 'akashya_108' or 'zoran kneta'? No, that have never been handles I used. Don't know about them, but he's the old zarzari and the old blusc0ut. Correct, you may add to this the old mahavid3h
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: snip He wasn't banned. **Wielding the full violent fury of my moderator iron fist**, I gently reminded him of the rule about not using the real names of anonymous posters, and he was, like, totally cool about it and agreed to stop doing it. Whoa! What a Shakespearean sentence! (emph. add.) :) And greatly exaggerated. Alex did it all in a very nice and soft way, and after my assurance, restored with light-speed-like immediacy my posting rights. So, thank you all, guys and gals for the warm welcome. Yes, Share, of course you can call me tea. Thank you Buck, I'm happy you can attend to the domes now again, thank you Vaj for your comment, and all others as well, who are well meaning. Thank you even Nabby, be assured, that the first thing I said to my initiates, is that they are prohibited from taking any of the other costly advanced techniques, when they take initiation from a rogue initiator like me, but that is exactly what they wanted, being close friends for years. When did you initiate the last person, Nabby? Just asking, because you encounter here people vehemently defending TM policies, and at the same time not walking the talk. Like saying that TM fees aren't prohibitive and at the same time not following the very essential movement recommendation to take 'fertilizers', because you had better things to do, with the 1500 bucks. Because, you see, Nabby, you may accuse me of saying critical things about TM, or things that are forbidden to talk about in a TM, when I feel the context and the environment is suitable. But I cannot be accused of not walking the talk. Btw. I initiated exactly according to the guidelines I had received, doing all the 'steps' verbatim, with the only difference, that I did not charge money, and did it without the org. I also took some liberties at the 3 days checking leaving off some of the more dogmatic stuff. (But I even mentioned it, but more like in 3rd person voice.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@... wrote: So Willy why haven't we gotten this information from the TMorg? Vaj: Because Willy is distorting the Transcendental Meditation tradition by making up fantasies. You are mistaken: the primary scripture of the Sri Vidya Tradition is the 'Soundarya Lahari' which was composed by the Adi Shankara. Well, you should know that in all likelihood the 'Soundarya Lahari' was not written by Adi Shankara, but is only attributed to him, as scholars agree. But as such, it does play a big role in the Dasanami Sampradaya. The truth is, that , as with any great author, such attribution of scriptures are commonplace, many scholars today even doubt that the Vivekachudamani is by Shankara. Neiter is Bhaja Govindam. Nevertheless it's an important Advaita Vedanta text. The Saunda contains all the TM bija mantras used by all the Saraswati Sannyasins. The Saunda is the main and most important tantra in the Shankara Saraswati Order, according to Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati Swamigal of Sringeri Matha. SBS's succussor, Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati of Jotirmath, is the only surviving direct desciple of SBS in the guru parampara, and Vasudevanand fully supports MMY's TM movement. Subject: Re: Guru Dev and Sri Vidya From: James Duffy Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: April 28, 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2drn7gp
[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: This is interesting. You actually justified Ravi's cranky behaviour as 'crazy wisdom' and 'holy madness'. I did no such thing. Yes you did. Man, can't anybody on this forum *read English*?? I take note that you start accusing more and more people of this. Seems to be you new tactics: others don't understand what you said, because their English isn't good enough or fluent. In my case you used to praise me for my English in the past, when we were on more friendly terms and before my eyes opened. Why can't you express in good, understandable, colloquial English yourself? But maybe that is not enough for the kind of meaningless sophistries you are involving yourself. In fact, I *castigated* him for his cranky behavior. Where was your objectivity then? --- authfriend jstein@ wrote: You want to rethink your claim that you don't engage in mind-reading? Yes, I have a pro-TM bias, I've never denied that. But as any objective person who has followed my posts would tell you, I'm not a TB; I can be very critical of the TMO and even of MMY. To criticize me for acknowledging uncertainty because I don't have the facts makes you look like a fool.
[FairfieldLife] Re: S U P E R BLOG/ CLIP ON TM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: (Judy:) And finally, to go back to the beginning, Ravi's cranky behavor and iranitea's claim that my expressing doubt about his notion of the TMO increasing the number of mantras so as to obscure and deceive the public was itself somehow deceptive and malign are not even remotely equivalent. Well, I never said this. You create here a new connection between two arguments, that I never made, and THAT is insidious. I start to believe, that you have really a problem of comprehension, Judy. You make connections that aren't there. I said that the increase of TM mantras is an attempt to obscure and deceive the public. This is admitted a negative formulation, I don't see it completely that negative. There are many arguments more to support this statement, in which I didn't go, it was just one of many arguments. And I also mocked at Judy of turning her eyes away from this, and she is purposefully vague, leaving a backdoor, but that is not the example of the way she obscures and deceives herself. I have already explained at length wherein her deception lies, it is basically to concentrate on small side remarks and character - assassination, in order to distract from the REAL larger issue. I don't want to go in it all again, but this is the wrong example. But the way she tries to give it a spin here - in this post - is of course malicious and deceptive in itself. That wasn't just cranky behavior on iranitea's part.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Welcome back. Thanks Emily, I appreciate that. Â Honestly, I hope you don't spend your posts here on letting your irritation at Judy and whatever seeming affronts to your ego you may have incurred in the past overshadow the many interesting contributions you could make and debates you could have. That won't be quite that easy, but I will keep it in mind. Â You have a lot to offer and it's nice to hear from you again. Thanks again. From: iranitea no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 1:11 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL - Â --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: snip He wasn't banned. **Wielding the full violent fury of my moderator iron fist**, I gently reminded him of the rule about not using the real names of anonymous posters, and he was, like, totally cool about it and agreed to stop doing it. Whoa! What a Shakespearean sentence! (emph. add.) :) And greatly exaggerated. Alex did it all in a very nice and soft way, and after my assurance, restored with light-speed-like immediacy my posting rights. So, thank you all, guys and gals for the warm welcome. Yes, Share, of course you can call me tea. Thank you Buck, I'm happy you can attend to the domes now again, thank you Vaj for your comment, and all others as well, who are well meaning. Thank you even Nabby, be assured, that the first thing I said to my initiates, is that they are prohibited from taking any of the other costly advanced techniques, when they take initiation from a rogue initiator like me, but that is exactly what they wanted, being close friends for years. When did you initiate the last person, Nabby? Just asking, because you encounter here people vehemently defending TM policies, and at the same time not walking the talk. Like saying that TM fees aren't prohibitive and at the same time not following the very essential movement recommendation to take 'fertilizers', because you had better things to do, with the 1500 bucks. Because, you see, Nabby, you may accuse me of saying critical things about TM, or things that are forbidden to talk about in a TM, when I feel the context and the environment is suitable. But I cannot be accused of not walking the talk. Btw. I initiated exactly according to the guidelines I had received, doing all the 'steps' verbatim, with the only difference, that I did not charge money, and did it without the org. I also took some liberties at the 3 days checking leaving off some of the more dogmatic stuff. (But I even mentioned it, but more like in 3rd person voice.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 06/10/2012 02:39 AM, iranitea wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iraniteano_reply@ wrote: Thank you even Nabby, be assured, that the first thing I said to my initiates, is that they are prohibited from taking any of the other costly advanced techniques, when they take initiation from a rogue initiator like me, but that is exactly what they wanted, being close friends for years. When did you initiate the last person, Nabby? Just asking, because you encounter here people vehemently defending TM policies, and at the same time not walking the talk. Since you claim I'm not walking the talk why bother to ask ? That claim as about Judy. I was just 'checking'(sic) on you. Like saying that TM fees aren't prohibitive and at the same time not following the very essential movement recommendation to take 'fertilizers', because you had better things to do, with the 1500 bucks. I have 6 advanced techniques, thank you very much. You ? If I count correctly I had about the 4th. But I don't practice them anymore. Well you are busy playing God restricting and tricking souls. Not at all. Not playing God but following God's will, you know ;-) Not restricting them, but giving them all the choices. (Hint: somebody who wants to continue with TM adv. programs can get regular, official initiation, without loss), not tricking them, but giving them maximum transparency, something so rare in today's world, don't you think? Good luck with that. Thank you. And I can assure, I haven't been struck by lightening yet. ;-) But why even bother with teaching TM when there are other methods to teach meditation? Two reasons: 1)They are old friends, and that's hat they wanted to learn. It is inevitable, that when you talk with friends, your past comes up at some point, and since this was a major part of my past, TM came up. And for the one friend who as the driving force, it was not just me but others as well that she knew who were once into it. 2) It's the one thing I know how to teach. I am not part of any other mantra or meditation tradition, even though I don't do TM, and even though I still meditate - but my meditation is spontaneous, completely self-driven, not something I could teach. And I doubt you could 'teach' such a meditation. It is the spontaneous result of many years of practice and diverse inner processes and transformations. After all TM is yoga lite and more a gimmick than anything else. Give people a beej mantra because they're short and have an effect easily even if it isn't sustaining. Have the teachers perform a puja just in case the teacher doesn't have much shakti to enliven any mantra. Many other schools use mantras that are longer like the advanced technique for their technique for the masses. They sustain longer but transcend more slowly. Many are jump started using shaktipat and another technique that teachers must do to assure the mantra works. Yes, I am sure you are right. But I gave them what they wanted, and they were very happy. I always leave the end open, it is up to them what they practice later on, if they choose for example a different (and longer) mantra. I haven't seen them for 3 month, since I was abroad, but I will probably see them in 1 or 2 weeks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: One thing I find off-putting past your decision to teach outside the purview of the TM is the fact that you don't practice what you teach. Not wishing to speak for inanitea but just trying to come up with an appropriate analogy, I would suggest that former grade school teachers are still more than capable of teaching the ABCs and basic reading skills if called upon to do so, but are not likely to spend their time at home reading the Dick And Jane books. Exactly! What an apt analogy. And did I not say, that I relearned all the material, the puja, the steps verbatim? Is it not clear that the whole process of initiation is scripted? And did I not spend innumerable hours in my life meditating this way? And, of course I told my initiates, that I don't meditate the TM way anymore, and they were not at least disturbed by this. Sometimes I think, what's wrong with these people like Lawson, or Judy or Nabby, what makes a person react like this? They are, I believe, obviously not concerned with meditation itself - the instructions were clear, nor the experiences, no, I think it is a tribal thing, he belongs to us, or he doesn't belong to us. Meditation itself, which is supposed to expand boundaries, is used to define the 'tribe' itself, is the person sitting next to me in the dome thinking the correct mantra? (We don't know which mantra, since there are so many in TM, neither which 'fertilizer' he has, but is it correct?) Maybe he radiates the wrong vibe, I smell, sniff, sniff, he doesn't belong to us. For some people here, the TM instructions, collected from stray remarks of their favorite teachers have become something like a religion in itself. They are as if chiseled in stone in their memory which they worship. I think it must have something to do with a reptilian part of our brain, tribal consciousness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: One thing I find off-putting past your decision to teach outside the purview of the TM is the fact that you don't practice what you teach. Not wishing to speak for inanitea but just trying to come up with an appropriate analogy, I would suggest that former grade school teachers are still more than capable of teaching the ABCs and basic reading skills if called upon to do so, but are not likely to spend their time at home reading the Dick And Jane books. Exactly! What an apt analogy. And did I not say, that I relearned all the material, the puja, the steps verbatim? Is it not clear that the whole process of initiation is scripted? And did I not spend innumerable hours in my life meditating this way? And, of course I told my initiates, that I don't meditate the TM way anymore, and they were not at least disturbed by this. Sometimes I think, what's wrong with these people like Lawson, or Judy or Nabby, what makes a person react like this? They are, I believe, obviously not concerned with meditation itself - the instructions were clear, nor the experiences, no, I think it is a tribal thing, he belongs to us, or he doesn't belong to us. Meditation itself, which is supposed to expand boundaries, is used to define the 'tribe' itself, is the person sitting next to me in the dome thinking the correct mantra? (We don't know which mantra, since there are so many in TM, neither which 'fertilizer' he has, but is it correct?) Maybe he radiates the wrong vibe, I smell, sniff, sniff, he doesn't belong to us. For some people here, the TM instructions, collected from stray remarks of their favorite teachers have become something like a religion in itself. They are as if chiseled in stone in their memory which they worship. I think it must have something to do with a reptilian part of our brain, tribal consciousness. I want to add to this, that I have discussed, especially with Lawson, my own present experiences in meditation, as blusc0ut. There is no way he could understand, if he would be willing that is, and there is no way I could change it, if I so wanted, which is not the case. In these dialogues I found Lawson and most of the pro TM-ers here extremely dense and blocked by their typical TM concepts. (concepts I can still use for teaching, but in a less dogmatic way, and with more openness.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
Barry, thanks for your kind and well meaning advice. I think you are right. I also enjoy, how you bring up spiritual topics here, like the ego and the wish to debate and win. Who else does it here? This is like a breeze of fresh air. And your articles are readable, not like the slaughterhouse threads she leaves. It was actually this unwholesome Ravi / Robin episode that opened my eyes about her, and her lack of practical experience with people and her lack of discrimination. I still had given her some credit for being smart and logical, but all that goes down the swanny, once you are on the other end of the debate. For all those who keep saying that you are still secretly reading her posts, I will say, that if you do it or not is completely irrelevant, because she reads every word that you write. And it allows you to keep her at a save distance, to not engage with her in her slaughterhouse threads. I think that's just fair game. I enjoy how you do this with humor, and spice it up with satire. So I wish you good luck in Holland, with the moles in your garden, and even more luck with teaching meditation, I think it's a good idea to do it the way, you just described it. We are not so far apart. You mentioned that concentration and effortlessness go together well. That coincides with my own experience, were concentration comes about totally spontaneous. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Similarly, the only way I've found to effectively deal with an Internet ego-mole is to ignore their silly asses as if they don't exist. Curtis finally became aware of the wisdom of this, and wrote Judy out of his life forever. So, for the most part (except for Public Service Announce- ments such as this one) have I. We built a fence. We don't interact with her, we (or at least I) don't bother to read the stuff she posts, and we go on plant- ing and tending to our gardens as if she doesn't exist. It's really the only thing that works. While I applaud your spunk at not being afraid of Judy, and taking her on as you have, it isn't going to work. She'll *always* declare that she's won every exchange, and simply redouble her efforts to keep you engaged and arguing with her. THAT is what she's after; that is ALL that she's after. Insulting you and trying to erode your credibility in the eyes of other posters here is gravy, for her. She's after the confrontation itself -- getting you to interact with her one-on-one so she can (in her mind, at least) destroy you. My advice is to not fall for it. Build a fence. Allow her to do this with the few people here who haven't figured out her game, and ignore her as if she didn't exist. You'll be happier, you'll have more time to devote to the many valuable things you could contribute here, and she'll be left spitting and cursing and angry, as she should be. You can't win. AS LONG AS SHE CAN KEEP YOU ARGUING WITH HER, SHE HAS ALREADY WON. You're dealing with a person so demented that she'd lie about why Ravi was removed from this forum, claiming that it was because he revealed someone's real name. I am *amazed* that no one called her on this, but then most are aware of what I said above, and just don't want to interface with her at all. Rick didn't remove Ravi from the forum because he revealed the real name of a poster here; that is ludicrous. We all knew that poster's real name, pretty much from Day One. What he did was to -- out of spite, and because he was constantly getting strokes from Judy for piling on to this person -- start to make up stories about the person being a pervert, and having had a history of abusing people he was teaching. Ravi had never even *met* the person he said this about, and was never a member of the organization he said he'd done these terrible things in. He just wanted to say something nasty about someone and gets strokes from Judy for saying it, so he called him a pervert. The person he was doing this to works *in public schools*. Every time he approaches a new school, he knows that the moment he walks out of the door after a presentation, the school officials are going to Google his name. So what did Ravi do? He Google-bombed this person such that when you Google his name, several FFL topics pop to the top of the list that claim he's a pervert or molester. THAT is what Ravi did to get kicked off of FFL. Besides being out of his fucking gourd and getting *worse* as a result of people like Judy using him as a pawn to further their own sad grudges, of course. If she'll lie about this, she'll lie about anything. It doesn't *matter* how much sense you make, or how you can bring the voice of true experience to your stories of what it's like to live in and be part of the TMO. She -- who was *never* a part of the TMO and will never be -- will *always* find a way to twist what you say and turn it into a dig at you. Consider
[FairfieldLife] Ekatva Bhavna
Recently, when being abroad, I told a close friend that one of the clear distinct feelings I got when first entering the Sahasradala Chakra was that of a profound aloneness. My friend said there is a term for this in Jainism, so I looked it up. What I'm referring to here is specific to the crown Chakra, it is very peculiar. It is not the kind of social disconnect, I also know, usually accompanied by a sense of sadness. But here I am very high, no sadness, a strange aloofness, difficult to describe. Ekatva Bhavna Solitude of the soul http://jainsquare.com/2011/05/14/ekatva-bhavna-solitude-of-the-soul/
[FairfieldLife] Tea Time
People here are speaking of working in an Ammachis Ashram in India, how hard it would be. Incidentally, as it so happens, I also just came back working in India, not in Amma's Ashram though, but, hey it's not far apart, I meet people and work with them, who just came from Ammachi's Ashram working there, as it is usual, and he didn't think working there was hard. But the perspective of an Ex-Purusha might be different, they were used to very few hours, and also many avoided hard physical work. This is a photo from my recent trip, being with Indian workers on a construction site, having tea time. I won't name the Ashram, as part of my anonymity. Tea time in India - with Indian workers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: Robin's posts weren't always easy to read, but if you actually made the effort, they were exceptionally meaty and perceptive. snip A number of the smartest posters on FFL were big fans of Robin, including raunchy and feste and Jim (although Barry would likely point out that the first two live in Fairfield). The reason Barry tries to put down Ravi and Robin is that both of them saw through him. Some of Robin's posts dissecting Barry were brilliant. Now, try to judge for yourself: http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/default.asp?url=kashkul.htm (Robin describes his meeting of Khomeini) Indeed I would say that the explosion of ecstasy and power that greeted the Imam was itself not so much a simple reflex based upon a fixed idea of the Imam; it was rather the natural and exuberant hymn of praise, of celebration that was demanded by the very majesty and overpowering charisma of this man. For once the door opened for him I experienced a hurricane of energy surge through the door, and in his brown robes, his black-turbaned head, his white beard he stirred every molecule in the building and riveted the attention in a way that made everything else disappear. He was a flowing mass of light that penetrated into the consciousness of each person in the hall. He destroyed all images that one tried to hold before one in sizing him up. He was so dominant in his presence that I found myself organized in my sensations by that which took me far beyond my own concepts, my own way of processing experience. I had expected-no matter what the apparent stature of the man to find myself scrutinizing his face, exploring his motivation, wondering about his real nature. Khomeini's power, grace, and absolute domination destroyed all my modes of evaluation and I was left to simply experience the energy and feeling that radiated from his presence on the stage. A hurricane he was, yet immediately one could see there was a point of absolute stillness inside that hurricane; while fierce and commanding, he was yet serene and receptive. Something was immovable inside him, yet that immovability moved the whole country of Iran This was no ordinary human being; in fact even of all the so called saints I had met-the Dalai Lama, Buddhist monks, Hindu sages-none possessed quite the electrifying presence of Khomeini. For those who could see (and feel) there could be no question about his integrity, nor about the claim, however muted by people like Yazdi, by his people that he had gone beyond the normal (or abnormal) selfhood of the human being and had taken residence in something absolute. This absoluteness was declared in the air, it was declared in the movement of his body, it was declared in the motion of his hands, it was declared in the fire of his personality, it was declared in the stillness of his consciousness. There was no mystery about why he was so loved by millions of Iranians and Muslims throughout the world and he demonstrated, to this observer at least, the empirical foundation for the notion of higher states of consciousness. Yes, the severity, the humourlessness, the absolutist judgement was apparent; yet given the circumstances within which he was placed, there was the affirmation of appropriateness in his every gesture and aspect. This was the most extraordinary person I had seen. Now, now, I know it's long time ago, but who wouldn't immediately recognize the same elaborate, over-emotional, overcast writing style, he also exhibited here on FFL? That he changed his opinions, world-views a thousand times during his life, and probably even at the moment you are reading this now, doesn't do a damned thing, it just should raise even a few more red flags, if you know the details, you know what I mean?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: Now, try to judge for yourself: http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/default.asp?url=kashkul.htm (Robin describes his meeting of Khomeini) Indeed I would say that the explosion of ecstasy and power that greeted the Imam was itself not so much a simple reflex based upon a fixed idea of the Imam; it was rather the natural and exuberant hymn of praise, of celebration that was demanded by the very majesty and overpowering charisma of this man. For once the door opened for him I experienced a hurricane of energy surge through the door, and in his brown robes, his black-turbaned head, his white beard he stirred every molecule in the building and riveted the attention in a way that made everything else disappear. He was a flowing mass of light that penetrated into the consciousness of each person in the hall. He destroyed all images that one tried to hold before one in sizing him up. He was so dominant in his presence that I found myself organized in my sensations by that which took me far beyond my own concepts, my own way of processing experience. I had expected-no matter what the apparent stature of the man to find myself scrutinizing his face, exploring his motivation, wondering about his real nature. Khomeini's power, grace, and absolute domination destroyed all my modes of evaluation and I was left to simply experience the energy and feeling that radiated from his presence on the stage. A hurricane he was, yet immediately one could see there was a point of absolute stillness inside that hurricane; while fierce and commanding, he was yet serene and receptive. Something was immovable inside him, yet that immovability moved the whole country of Iran This was no ordinary human being; in fact even of all the so called saints I had met-the Dalai Lama, Buddhist monks, Hindu sages-none possessed quite the electrifying presence of Khomeini. For those who could see (and feel) there could be no question about his integrity, nor about the claim, however muted by people like Yazdi, by his people that he had gone beyond the normal (or abnormal) selfhood of the human being and had taken residence in something absolute. This absoluteness was declared in the air, it was declared in the movement of his body, it was declared in the motion of his hands, it was declared in the fire of his personality, it was declared in the stillness of his consciousness. There was no mystery about why he was so loved by millions of Iranians and Muslims throughout the world and he demonstrated, to this observer at least, the empirical foundation for the notion of higher states of consciousness. Yes, the severity, the humourlessness, the absolutist judgement was apparent; yet given the circumstances within which he was placed, there was the affirmation of appropriateness in his every gesture and aspect. This was the most extraordinary person I had seen. To further springboard off of this quote, being as it is an indicator of the validity of Robin's assessments of people, one should point out that the most extraordinary person I [Robin] had seen is judged by history to be the cause of an estimated 30,000 people executed in Iran during his regime, for the crimes of heresy or other perceived affronts to the glory of Islam. Most are also familiar with the fatwa (death sentence) he pronounced against writer Salman Rushdie, which has forced him to live most of his life in hiding. But then again, these things might not affect Robin's judg- ment of the man. He might, in fact, be comfortable with them. After all, when the subject of the Inquisition came up on FFL, he said, Jesus, it feels good to align myself with Torquemada: I just love the psychology of the Inquisition. One of his other quotes on the subject was, I have read the major books on the Inquisition: there is a case to be made for this institution. He tried to balance this statement by saying that Hell is worse than the Inquisition and suggesting that the Inquisition might not be appropriate in today's age, but he went out of his way to defend both the institution in its day and his main man Aquinas for supporting it. Unbelievable, disgusting, but I just looked one quote up, and it is true! And Judy thought I was disgusting in my judgment about him. The truth is I was even too timid in just naming him borderline. But I think what really upset her was, that I agreed with YOU. That is the one thing she upsets most about, and well I do agree with! Robin, being smart enough, caught her by his unique gift of flattery, and by judging you just the same way she does
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: Now, try to judge for yourself: http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/default.asp?url=kashkul.htm (Robin describes his meeting of Khomeini) Indeed I would say that the explosion of ecstasy and power that greeted the Imam was itself not so much a simple reflex based upon a fixed idea of the Imam; it was rather the natural and exuberant hymn of praise, of celebration that was demanded by the very majesty and overpowering charisma of this man. For once the door opened for him I experienced a hurricane of energy surge through the door, and in his brown robes, his black-turbaned head, his white beard he stirred every molecule in the building and riveted the attention in a way that made everything else disappear. He was a flowing mass of light that penetrated into the consciousness of each person in the hall. He destroyed all images that one tried to hold before one in sizing him up. He was so dominant in his presence that I found myself organized in my sensations by that which took me far beyond my own concepts, my own way of processing experience. I had expected-no matter what the apparent stature of the man to find myself scrutinizing his face, exploring his motivation, wondering about his real nature. Khomeini's power, grace, and absolute domination destroyed all my modes of evaluation and I was left to simply experience the energy and feeling that radiated from his presence on the stage. A hurricane he was, yet immediately one could see there was a point of absolute stillness inside that hurricane; while fierce and commanding, he was yet serene and receptive. Something was immovable inside him, yet that immovability moved the whole country of Iran This was no ordinary human being; in fact even of all the so called saints I had met-the Dalai Lama, Buddhist monks, Hindu sages-none possessed quite the electrifying presence of Khomeini. For those who could see (and feel) there could be no question about his integrity, nor about the claim, however muted by people like Yazdi, by his people that he had gone beyond the normal (or abnormal) selfhood of the human being and had taken residence in something absolute. This absoluteness was declared in the air, it was declared in the movement of his body, it was declared in the motion of his hands, it was declared in the fire of his personality, it was declared in the stillness of his consciousness. There was no mystery about why he was so loved by millions of Iranians and Muslims throughout the world and he demonstrated, to this observer at least, the empirical foundation for the notion of higher states of consciousness. Yes, the severity, the humourlessness, the absolutist judgement was apparent; yet given the circumstances within which he was placed, there was the affirmation of appropriateness in his every gesture and aspect. This was the most extraordinary person I had seen. To further springboard off of this quote, being as it is an indicator of the validity of Robin's assessments of people, one should point out that the most extraordinary person I [Robin] had seen is judged by history to be the cause of an estimated 30,000 people executed in Iran during his regime, for the crimes of heresy or other perceived affronts to the glory of Islam. Most are also familiar with the fatwa (death sentence) he pronounced against writer Salman Rushdie, which has forced him to live most of his life in hiding. But then again, these things might not affect Robin's judg- ment of the man. He might, in fact, be comfortable with them. After all, when the subject of the Inquisition came up on FFL, he said, Jesus, it feels good to align myself with Torquemada: I just love the psychology of the Inquisition. One of his other quotes on the subject was, I have read the major books on the Inquisition: there is a case to be made for this institution. He tried to balance this statement by saying that Hell is worse than the Inquisition and suggesting that the Inquisition might not be appropriate in today's age, but he went out of his way to defend both the institution in its day and his main man Aquinas for supporting it. Unbelievable, disgusting, but I just looked one quote up, and it is true! And Judy thought I was disgusting in my judgment about him. The truth is I was even too timid in just naming him borderline. But I
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: Now, try to judge for yourself: http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/default.asp?url=kashkul.htm (Robin describes his meeting of Khomeini) Indeed I would say that the explosion of ecstasy and power that greeted the Imam was itself not so much a simple reflex based upon a fixed idea of the Imam; it was rather the natural and exuberant hymn of praise, of celebration that was demanded by the very majesty and overpowering charisma of this man. For once the door opened for him I experienced a hurricane of energy surge through the door, and in his brown robes, his black-turbaned head, his white beard he stirred every molecule in the building and riveted the attention in a way that made everything else disappear. He was a flowing mass of light that penetrated into the consciousness of each person in the hall. He destroyed all images that one tried to hold before one in sizing him up. He was so dominant in his presence that I found myself organized in my sensations by that which took me far beyond my own concepts, my own way of processing experience. I had expected-no matter what the apparent stature of the man to find myself scrutinizing his face, exploring his motivation, wondering about his real nature. Khomeini's power, grace, and absolute domination destroyed all my modes of evaluation and I was left to simply experience the energy and feeling that radiated from his presence on the stage. A hurricane he was, yet immediately one could see there was a point of absolute stillness inside that hurricane; while fierce and commanding, he was yet serene and receptive. Something was immovable inside him, yet that immovability moved the whole country of Iran This was no ordinary human being; in fact even of all the so called saints I had met-the Dalai Lama, Buddhist monks, Hindu sages-none possessed quite the electrifying presence of Khomeini. For those who could see (and feel) there could be no question about his integrity, nor about the claim, however muted by people like Yazdi, by his people that he had gone beyond the normal (or abnormal) selfhood of the human being and had taken residence in something absolute. This absoluteness was declared in the air, it was declared in the movement of his body, it was declared in the motion of his hands, it was declared in the fire of his personality, it was declared in the stillness of his consciousness. There was no mystery about why he was so loved by millions of Iranians and Muslims throughout the world and he demonstrated, to this observer at least, the empirical foundation for the notion of higher states of consciousness. Yes, the severity, the humourlessness, the absolutist judgement was apparent; yet given the circumstances within which he was placed, there was the affirmation of appropriateness in his every gesture and aspect. This was the most extraordinary person I had seen. To further springboard off of this quote, being as it is an indicator of the validity of Robin's assessments of people, one should point out that the most extraordinary person I [Robin] had seen is judged by history to be the cause of an estimated 30,000 people executed in Iran during his regime, for the crimes of heresy or other perceived affronts to the glory of Islam. Most are also familiar with the fatwa (death sentence) he pronounced against writer Salman Rushdie, which has forced him to live most of his life in hiding. But then again, these things might not affect Robin's judg- ment of the man. He might, in fact, be comfortable with them. After all, when the subject of the Inquisition came up on FFL, he said, Jesus, it feels good to align myself with Torquemada: I just love the psychology of the Inquisition. One of his other quotes on the subject was, I have read the major books on the Inquisition: there is a case to be made for this institution. He tried to balance this statement by saying that Hell is worse than the Inquisition and suggesting that the Inquisition might not be appropriate in today's age, but he went out of his way to defend both the institution in its day and his main man Aquinas for supporting it. Unbelievable, disgusting, but I just looked one quote up, and it is true! And Judy thought I was disgusting in my judgment about him. The truth is I was even too timid in just naming him borderline. But I think what really upset her was, that I agreed with YOU. That is the one thing she upsets most
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
Very well said, Vaj. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: The interesting thing about taking a test to look at our own various `quirks', like the Myers-Briggs - of course the infamous Minnesota - the MMPI - or the more recent DSM III/IV questionnaires, is that you realize how your own perceived flaws are really rather minor things in the big scheme of things. In the scope and complexity of a normal human person they are really no big deal. You realize that different people are really just that - different. If you look at it openly you realize that it's really just a smorgasbord of relations...you can eat, or decide not to eat...our differences are merely an opportunity at an open ended appreciation of life. Certainly in the complex interminglings of an email list, all these dramatic exaggerations of so many selves rise into even more drama-laden net-social, very theatrical sufferings. Those earlier personal minor sufferings become magnified into a weird internet tabloid UPI feed. And people feed on this weird stream. It's a pretty sad output. What's really sad is that human discourse has devolved into this level of interaction.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Breaking News: New Fence will Block Arunachalas Inner Path.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard richard@... wrote: Arunachala's Inner Path is a precious resource. This quiet path is used by those who want the peace of Arunachala, which is not available on the road route, and is used as a Pradakshina route by Westerners and Indians alike. A new fence is being built across the path which will block the Inner Path. But help is on the way. Read this posting to see more. http://richardarunachala.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/breaking-news-new-fence-will-block-arunachalas-inner-path/ Richard Thanks Richard for all the work you are doing on this. I have been walking the inner path about a year ago, and I think at the time I was told there was a third path spitting off the 2nd (inner) path. I personally don't mind any climbing, as long as it is not through dense bushes.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Breaking News: New Fence will Block Arunachalas Inner Path.
Ah yes, that's it. Thanks! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard richard@... wrote: This other path is called the Yellow Path and is usually clipped so you won't get thorns. You can see posts about this here: http://richardarunachala.wordpress.com/guide-to-this-blog/arunachala-and-the-inner-path/ Richard --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard richard@ wrote: Arunachala's Inner Path is a precious resource. This quiet path is used by those who want the peace of Arunachala, which is not available on the road route, and is used as a Pradakshina route by Westerners and Indians alike. A new fence is being built across the path which will block the Inner Path. But help is on the way. Read this posting to see more. http://richardarunachala.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/breaking-news-new-fence-will-block-arunachalas-inner-path/ Richard Thanks Richard for all the work you are doing on this. I have been walking the inner path about a year ago, and I think at the time I was told there was a third path spitting off the 2nd (inner) path. I personally don't mind any climbing, as long as it is not through dense bushes.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Beautiful stuff, Barry. A life well-lived. What happened to Orange in those first two games? The orange was squeezed out. Are they mourning there in Amsterdam? Arjen Robben seemed angry at being replaced. Is there an 'attitude' problem with the Dutch side? Don't know about that, but Robben has a bit of a down now. Remember also he is playing for Bavaria Munich. Many of the German players are his buddies. That would make sense to me. Nice goal by Robin, however. Can't beat that German discipline. Riiight! But not just discipline, also cleverness and great technique.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: [...] As I�ve commented numerous times before, Personality disordered people are the bane of email lists. All the societal filters that would prevent such a person from wreaking havoc in person are gone, so consequently they can wreak havoc on the lives of others unabated. On moderated lists, it�s less of an issue. On lightly moderated lists, it can destroy the tenor and tone of the list. Vaj, has it never occurred to you that your own obsession with TM and MMY could be described this way? Come to think of it, MY own obsession with TM and MMY could be described this way... To my mind, the obsession with diagnosing people he doesn't like (along with iranitea and Barry) with personality disorders is far more destructive of the tenor and tone of the list than anything these people do. It's insidious of you to assume I do not like Robin because I have formed this opinion. It has more to do with judging what he says. The fact that this came out here on the list, and the way it came out has more to do with the habitual obsessions of certain people here. (Hint, hint)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Bayern Munich Yep, I tried to translate it into English --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Beautiful stuff, Barry. A life well-lived. What happened to Orange in those first two games? The orange was squeezed out. Are they mourning there in Amsterdam? Arjen Robben seemed angry at being replaced. Is there an 'attitude' problem with the Dutch side? Don't know about that, but Robben has a bit of a down now. Remember also he is playing for Bavaria Munich. Many of the German players are his buddies. That would make sense to me. Nice goal by Robin, however. Can't beat that German discipline. Riiight! But not just discipline, also cleverness and great technique.
[FairfieldLife] Re: For Robin - Down to Zero
Emily, I always think of this song, when I see your name here, you probably know it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLQiFlgSVYs --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brp8Va8XVQwfeature=fvwrel Dear Robin, Such a great joy to hear from you again. Thank you for infusing FFL with a little humor and wisdom and poetry and positive energy. Your presence is a gift here and your perspicacity is not easily matched. I am off to the beach today to unplug for a couple of weeks, but I wanted to let you know how very much I enjoyed reading your posts this week. ~Em
[FairfieldLife] Re: For Robin - Down to Zero
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Yes, but: Emily tries and understands, Your call here. Maybe she understands you (or you feel understood by her), but not me. LOL ah oh/ She's not inclined to borrow somebody's dreams for today.../ [She'll] keep [her] mind and play. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: Emily, I always think of this song, when I see your name here, you probably know it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLQiFlgSVYs --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brp8Va8XVQwfeature=fvwrel Dear Robin, Such a great joy to hear from you again. Thank you for infusing FFL with a little humor and wisdom and poetry and positive energy. Your presence is a gift here and your perspicacity is not easily matched. I am off to the beach today to unplug for a couple of weeks, but I wanted to let you know how very much I enjoyed reading your posts this week. ~Em
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: Barry dosen't understand that Emily has true love and concern for him. Emily maybe full of love, but she doesn't understand Barry either: That he is completely truthful to himself and authentic. She could learn much from Barry. Thank you, however, for the advice. I think, by the way, that Emily has the last word here. What she managed to say, well, it seemed the whole universe was listening and Barry could not answer her. And never will. She spoke the truth in both of her e-mails addressed to Mr Wright who is an intelligent and interesting person, by the way. --- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: Robin, please note that Barry hates attention. You can talk to me, IraniTea, Judy, Share and Raunchy. By the way Robin, please elaborate on this point you mentioned below. This particular fresco you mention. Did you ever get to Bologna and enter the Basilica of San Petronio to see the fresco of The Last Judgment by Giovanni da Moedena? My friend The Ayatollah did not like Mohammed's final fate as depicted there. Being bound to a rock in Hell, getting clawed by demons. --- Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Dear Jason, I can't separate out that particular passage in my letter to Barry. The whole thing is a unity (what I wrote there, despite it's seeming desultory appearance). To elaborate on this point would destroy the integrity of what I createdunder the inspiration of approaching someone who finds me a repellent or tedious or narcissistic or mentally disturbed human being. I responded to his post as best I could. What you read there is all of a piece, even as it seemingly is composed of separate and disparate pieces. On the other hand, if you wish me to talk about Islam in relationship to Dante putting Mohammed in the Eight Circle of Hell, I am glad to do that. Muslims are ultra-sincere about their religion and they are extremely sensitive to any disparaging references to their Prophetas we know from the life of Salman Rushdie, himself raised in a Muslim household in India. In my various trips to the Middle East I talked to numerous Muslims, and became friends with a devout Islamic scholar (a convert). I think I know how a Muslim thinksboth the Shi'a and the Sunni (they are very different by the way: this is most important to know for instance in understanding Iran as opposed say, to Saudi Arabia). But all devout Muslims are almost incapable of tolerating any criticism of MohammedThis is what Islam does to you if you give yourself to it. You are never the same. About Barry hating attention, I know what you mean here, Jason. Barry will be Barry no matter what. My motive in responding to him was because he thought it fitting to continue to depict medisingenuouslyas someone suffering under some kind of mania. This is absurd, as even his good friend Curtis knew. But as long as he feels he needs to do this, I will, if I feel it is appropriate, find some way to answer him. What I wrote today, that was, for me, the only way to respond to what he had written. Thank you, however, for the advice. I think, by the way, that Emily has the last word here. What she managed to say, well, it seemed the whole universe was listeningand Barry could not answer her. And never will. She spoke the truth in both of her e-mails addressed to Mr Wrightwho is an intelligent and interesting person, by the way. Robin --- Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Beautiful stuff, Barry. A life well-lived. What happened to Orange in those first two games? Are they mourning there in Amsterdam? Arjen Robben seemed angry at being replaced. Is there an 'attitude' problem with the Dutch side? That would make sense to me. Nice goal by Robin, however. Can't beat that German discipline. Did you know that Max von Sydow says that Ingmar Bergman actually got to play chess with Deathand lived to tell about it? I guess it's hard being a Clear if we are to go by John Travolta's troublesalthough Tom is said to be terrific in Rock of Ages. I think Matt and Trey pretty much insure that Mitt won't be talking about his underwearlike Bill did in '92. Did you know they call the Nissan GT-R Godzilla? If I get Boris Johnson to come, you will have a beer with me, right? Sometimes being a conservative is all right. Someone told me you would go after Saint Francis of Assisi if he posted on FFL. Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe, she was Thomas Nagel's teacher at Cambridge, and now it seems, with his book coming out in September [Oxford], they are getting a little closer metaphysically. What is New York all about? They booed Tim Tebow when he showed
[FairfieldLife] Re: There is no such thing as Enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@... wrote: emptybill: It gives an accurate account of Shankara's central teaching points and demonstrates the divergence between Shankara's original advaita and the yogic advaita that appeared after the fourteenth century. Advaita Vedanta is just a restatement of Vajrayana Buddhism, the 'Consciousness Only' school. Almost all the Upaanishads were composed after the Shakya's passing. Where I am coming from, where I just spend the last 3 month, buses have sign-boards saying: Nagarjuna, there is a popular cement brand called Nagarjuna as well, I used to have philosophical discussions with my friend, walking on the street, when a bus, having a huge sign 'Nagarjuna' was just passing by. I think people there don't know much about him, as there are hardly any Buddhists in the population, but about 400 kms north there is this place 'Nagarjunakonda' where Nagarjuna spent most of his life in the forests. According to the consciousness only school, 'chit' is thought, 'citta' is conciousness - 'citta vriti' means the turning of thought in the mind. ''Nirodha' is cessation - the turnings have stopped, ceased, come to a halt, stilled, blown out, made peaceful, 'nirvana'. According to Patanjali, Yoga is concerned with *isolation*, 'kaivalya', from the prakriti; the cessation of the fluctuations of the mindstuff; the attainment of freedom. The problem is, you can't have freewill and be under the power of another; that would be a contradiction in terms, would it not? We are either free or we are not; if free, then there is no need for yoga practice. If we are not free, then by what means are we to free ourselves? It's that simple - there is either other-power or self-power. The other power is termed 'maya' and the Transcendent Power is termed 'Self-power'. The power of this world is maya, that is, the illusion that we are separate from the Purusha. It's like a veil, that when pulled, reveals the real. All the Vedanta sampradayas accept maya in one form or another. It's a state of mind, where the individual 'wakes up' to reality - comes alive to his own inner bodhi nature. However, there is a trick: maya is not real, yet not unreal, nor both nor neither! According Chaitanya, the exact way that maya produces the world, yet at the same time, remains one in the Purusha, 'adwaita', is really indescribable. Patanjali says: Otherwise you identify with the turning of thoughts - vritti sarupyam itaratra (YS I.1.4). Otherwise, you identify with the thoughts, get overwhelmed by them, and before you know it, you are thinking, 'this is my body, this is my self', and forgetting that you are in reality the Transcendental Person - the Purusha looking over your self.
[FairfieldLife] Re: There is no such thing as Enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@... wrote: Where I am coming from, where I just spend the last 3 month, buses have sign-boards saying: Nagarjuna, there is a popular cement brand called Nagarjuna as well, I used to have philosophical discussions with my friend, walking on the street, when a bus, having a huge sign 'Nagarjuna' was just passing by. I think people there don't know much about him, as there are hardly any Buddhists in the population, but about 400 kms north there is this place 'Nagarjunakonda' where Nagarjuna spent most of his life in the forests. http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1hl=enclient=ubuntusa=Nchannel=fsb\ iw=1167bih=568tbm=ischtbnid=Jp7JTUT2JIWOoM:imgrefurl=http://www.face\ book.com/people/Nagarjuna-Cement/11705356588docid=qPQP7XhwlE5KJMim\ gurl=http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/41633_11705356588_\ 4896_n.jpgw=133h=149ei=aD7bT_ziD8zN4QSD3MDWCgzoom=1 http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1hl=enclient=ubuntusa=Nchannel=fsb\ iw=1167bih=568tbm=ischtbnid=vEMtZOkOFVZsfM:imgrefurl=http://www.prot\ ocolindia.com/clients_cement.htmldocid=xREOKCJtMjfaYMimgurl=http://www\ .protocolindia.com/client_logo/Nagarjuna-Cement.jpgw=150h=100ei=aD7bT\ _ziD8zN4QSD3MDWCgzoom=1
[FairfieldLife] Re: There is no such thing as Enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@... wrote: emptybill: What is Advaita? What is Yoga? Both Sankhya and Yoga are concerned with the two principles: Purusha and prakriti. Prakriti is composed of the 32 tattwas which are maintained by the three constituents of nature, namely the three gunas. You should know that the Purusha is completely and totally separate from the prakriti, that's why they call it the Transcendental Absolute. So, we have relative and absolute qualities of life, a material existence and another - which is beyond the forces born of nature. Do we agree so far? The force of prakriti is called samsara, which has been described by Shakya the Muni as a like a 'wheel', eternally in motion, with twelve spokes symbolizing the 'Twelve-fold Chain of Causation', much like the whirling flames that shoot out as God Shiva does the 'Tandava Dance'. The wheel then, symbolizes the revolving cycle of transmigration, brought about by the law of cause and effect, or karma. According to the Shakya, the purpose of yoga is to thin out the taints of past karma, the samkaras. The Adi Shankara agrees with this in his commentary on the 'Vivarna of Vyasa on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras' and MMY seems to agree when he stated that 'TM' is NOT the cause of enlightenment. The practice simply provides the ideal opportunity for the transcending. Patanjali says: When thought ceases, the Transcendental Absolute stands by itself, refers to Itself, as a witness to the world - (YS I.1.3} tada drastuh svarupe vasthanam. IIRC Shankara did not use the word Advaita for his philosophy, rather it would have been called Sankhya at the time. Please also bear in mind, that discrimination, Viveka, was the basis of Shankaras teaching. Discrimination between Purusha and Prakriti, Brahman and Maya, therefore one of the works attributed to him is called Vivekachudamani or Crest jewel of discrimination. Shankara, like Nagarjuna, was adhering to the doctrine of two truths, as it is already mentioned in the Upanishads. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-truths_doctrine I have read much, but not yet all of the article by James Swartz, but I have a hard time believing he represents Shankara in any way. For me this is more like Neo-Advaita disguised as traditional Advaita
[FairfieldLife] Re: There is no such thing as Enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: Where I am coming from, where I just spend the last 3 month, buses have sign-boards saying: Nagarjuna, there is a popular cement brand called Nagarjuna as well, I used to have philosophical discussions with my friend, walking on the street, when a bus, having a huge sign ' Nagarjuna' was just passing by. I think people there don't know much about him, as there are hardly any Buddhists in the population, but about 400 kms north there is this place 'Nagarjunakonda' where Nagarjuna spent most of his life in the forests. http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1hl=enclient=ubuntusa=Nchannel=fsb\ iw=1167bih=568tbm=ischtbnid=Jp7JTUT2JIWOoM:imgrefurl=http://www.face\ book.com/people/Nagarjuna-Cement/11705356588docid=qPQP7XhwlE5KJMim\ gurl=http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/41633_11705356588_\ 4896_n.jpgw=133h=149ei=aD7bT_ziD8zN4QSD3MDWCgzoom=1 http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1hl=enclient=ubuntusa=Nchannel=fsb\ iw=1167bih=568tbm=ischtbnid=vEMtZOkOFVZsfM:imgrefurl=http://www.prot\ ocolindia.com/clients_cement.htmldocid=xREOKCJtMjfaYMimgurl=http://www\ .protocolindia.com/client_logo/Nagarjuna-Cement.jpgw=150h=100ei=aD7bT\ _ziD8zN4QSD3MDWCgzoom=1 As I've mentioned before, in the days shortly after I walked away from the TMO, I shared an apartment with a fellow who went off to TTC in India. When he returned he brought me a gift -- a bottle of Guru brand beer. I kept it for many years, although I never tasted it because he told me it was really, really, really bad. I always loved the idea, and used to bring it out at parties and entertain with a comedy routine based on what its *advertising campaign must have been like. Can't you imagine it? A bunch of way holy holy men trudge up the hill to their caves in the evening, after a day of working with their disciples down in the town below. They strip off the tops of their dhotis and sit around in their undershirts, complaining for a few minutes about the long, hard grind of their work day. But then some- one brings out a six-pack of Guru. They pass the bottles around, pop the tops off of them, and take a sip, and the heavy karmas of the day just fade away, as they raise their bottles and toast each other, saying, Man, that's a Guru! :-) [http://www.indiaoverland.biz/forum-img/guru.jpg] http://www.indiaoverland.biz/forum-img/guru.jpg http://www.indiaoverland.biz/forum-img/guru.jpg Yes, great story. That's very much like India, the profane and the 'holy' are very often close together. Don't forget Durga Wines. At school walls you find paintings of celebrities like Buddha and Che Chevara, together with other saints and social reformers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
Robin, there is no need for me to answer this 'question', as these are not real questions. You are already prejudiced, and what you say here is not coming from a place of honesty and truthfulness, but rather from an attempt to draw either of us into a discussion, but you are certainly not open. And for Judy it is even worse, she is only out to win another battle,twisting arguments. If you would actually read Barry's posts, you would have got a more spiritual perspective on this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: Barry dosen't understand that Emily has true love and concern for him. Emily maybe full of love, but she doesn't understand Barry either: That he is completely truthful to himself and authentic. She could learn much from Barry. Iranitea, there's only one problem with this: where is the evidence in Emily's posts of some failure of sensitivity, openness, receptivity to Barry? For what you say to be true requires that Emily in a sense suffers from the same failing as Barry does (allegedly, if we are to believe Emily's posts to Barry from yesterday). I am sure Barry himself has never heard himself described like this (or if he has, he has not taken it to heart) else we, we readers who wish to understand Barry with all our might, would have felt the inviolable poise and equability in his posts that must be there for what you say here (about Barry) to be the case. Is there anyone else on FFL (such as yourself?) who fits the description you make about Barry: he is completely truthful to himself and authentic? Because, iranitea, if I understand you, Emily *could* learn much from Barry, but she is *not* learning from Barry. Ergo, Emily is somehow prejudiced or biased against Barry such as to deprive her of what there is in Barry's posts which could edify her. I think, therefore, you need, iranitea, to explain what it is about Emily's posts which demonstrateat least for youhow she is missing out on the wisdom (I must assume wisdom not limited to being imparted only to Emily) that is there inside of Barry's posts for the discerning and humble reader. In other words, *where and how Emily is blocking out what Barryand, I must assume, realitywishes to inculcateor would inculcateby virtue of Barry always being completely truthful to himself and authentic*? Contrary to what you assert here, iranitea, I believe Emily is very anxious to give the most generous and fair reading of Barry that is possible. This, at least, is what I glean from a close reading of her posts. She is as willing and conscientious as any poster on FFL to find the good in everyone. I would wish you to cite a single example of an Emily post where she, quite explicitly, demonstrates the basis of your thesis. She could learn much from Barry: That sentence, iranitea, it does not, when you utter it, associate itself in your heart and mind with a specific and felt particular datum. For it to have a purchase on reality, you must, when you write it, hold within yourself the experience of how it is true inside your experience, and inside your knowledge of both Emily and Barry. Otherwise, it is merely a cliche, or the vaguest generalization. Whereas, if you read both of Emily's posts to Barry, they are very personal, heartfelt, and sincere, and carry inside of them a very real experience of Barryand not just this; even a love for Barry (as Jason has pointed out). That is why, when a disinterested person reads them (Emily's two posts about Barry from yesterday), there is a sense of their truthfulness, for Emily is appealing to Barry from within the desire she has sustained right through to this moment, to do justice to Barry, to understand him, to see him in the best possible light. Emily may be full of love, but she doesn't understand Barry either: That he is completely truthful to himself and authentic. This very well may be true, iranitea; but you have chosen to declare it to be true without possessing within yourself the kind of experiential evidence which would allow the rest of us to wish to be disabused of a notion of Barry which seems to contradict this avowal. Look here, iranitea: Should it be the case (your affirmation about Barry Wright corresponds to the actual truth of the matter: reality would agree with you) that Barry Wright conforms to your description of him, then many more persons than Emily don't understand Barry either. You see, iranitea, *I would really like to find out that what you have said here is true*, but I feel you are being more then parsimonious with adducing the evidence for its plausibility. Would you consider furnishing some proof of your contention that I might join you and become
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: [...] As I�ve commented numerous times before, Personality disordered people are the bane of email lists. All the societal filters that would prevent such a person from wreaking havoc in person are gone, so consequently they can wreak havoc on the lives of others unabated. On moderated lists, it�s less of an issue. On lightly moderated lists, it can destroy the tenor and tone of the list. Vaj, has it never occurred to you that your own obsession with TM and MMY could be described this way? Come to think of it, MY own obsession with TM and MMY could be described this way... To my mind, the obsession with diagnosing people he doesn't like (along with iranitea and Barry) with personality disorders is far more destructive of the tenor and tone of the list than anything these people do. It's insidious of you to assume (Insidious isn't quite the word you want here.) Disingenuous! For example, it is disingenuous of you to cut the sentence at this place, if you read only the second half, you get the opposite meaning. I do not like Robin because I have formed this opinion. It has more to do with judging what he says. The fact that this came out here on the list, You mean, the fact that you and Barry decided to attack him by claiming he's psychotic. and the way it came out You mean, by your searching the Web for something to use against him, finding something he wrote 30 years ago, and then quoting it without context as if it were evidence of the state of his mental health today. has more to do with the habitual obsessions of certain people here. (Hint, hint) Yes, no hints needed, I already pointed out that you did this in an attempt to revenge yourself on me for having called you out for pulling the same faux-diagnosing stunt back in December (both times when you figured he wasn't around to defend himself). As I've noted, this all says much more about *your* state of mental health (not to mention your integrity) than about his or mine. BTW, you aren't supposed to be reading, or at least responding, to anything I say, remember?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A must book for sidhas?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/search?index=bookslinkCode=qskeywords=0415391156 Looks like a great book.
[FairfieldLife] The Unconscious exists study says
Freud's Theory of Unconscious Conflict Linked to Anxiety Symptoms ScienceDaily (June 16, 2012) A link between unconscious conflicts and conscious anxiety disorder symptoms have been shown, lending empirical support to psychoanalysis. An experiment that Sigmund Freud could never have imagined 100 years ago may help lend scientific support for one of his key theories, and help connect it with current neuroscience. June 16 at the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Psychoanalytic Association, a University of Michigan professor who has spent decades applying scientific methods to the study of psychoanalysis will present new data supporting a causal link between the psychoanalytic concept known as unconscious conflict, and the conscious symptoms experienced by people with anxiety disorders such as phobias. Howard Shevrin, Ph.D., emeritus professor of psychology in the U-M Medical School's Department of Psychiatry, will present data from experiments performed in U-M's Ormond and Hazel Hunt Laboratory. The research involved 11 people with anxiety disorders who each received a series of psychoanalytically oriented diagnostic sessions conducted by a psychoanalyst. From these interviews the psychoanalysts inferred what underlying unconscious conflict might be causing the person's anxiety disorder. Words capturing the nature of the unconscious conflict were then selected from the interviews and used as stimuli in the laboratory. They also selected words related to each patient's experience of anxiety disorder symptoms. Although these words differed from patient to patient, results showed that they functioned in the same way. These verbal stimuli were presented subliminally at one thousandth of a second, and supraliminally at 30 milliseconds. A control category of stimuli was added that had no relationship to the unconscious conflict or anxiety symptom. While the stimuli were presented to the patients, scalp electrodes record the brain responses to them. In a previous experiment Shevrin had demonstrated that time-frequency features, a type of brain activity, showed that patients grouped the unconscious conflict stimuli together only when they were presented subliminally. But the conscious symptom-related stimuli showed the reverse pattern -- brain activity was better grouped together when patients viewed those words supraliminally. Only when the unconscious conflict words were presented unconsciously could the brain see them as connected, Shevrin notes. What the analysts put together from the interview session made sense to the brain only unconsciously. However, the experimental design in this first experiment did not allow for directly comparing the effect of the unconscious conflict stimuli on the conscious symptom stimuli. To obtain evidence for that next level, the unconscious conflict stimuli were presented immediately prior to the conscious symptom stimuli and a new measurement was made, of the brain's own alpha wave frequency, at 8-13 cycles per second, that had been shown to inhibit various cognitive functions. Highly significant correlations, suggesting an inhibitory effect, were obtained when the amount of alpha generated by the unconscious conflict stimuli were correlated with the amount of alpha associated with the conscious symptom alpha -- but only when the unconscious conflict stimuli were presented subliminally. No results were obtained when control stimuli replaced the symptom words. The fact that these findings are a function of inhibition suggests that from a psychoanalytic standpoint that repression might be involved. These results create a compelling case that unconscious conflicts cause or contribute to the anxiety symptoms the patient is experiencing, says Shevrin, who also holds an emeritus position in the Department of Psychology in U-M's College of Literature, Science and the Arts. These findings and the interdisciplinary methods used -- which draw on psychoanalysis, cognitive psychology, and neuroscience -- demonstrate that it is possible to develop an interdisciplinary science drawing upon psychoanalytic theory. He notes that a prominent critic of psychoanalysis and Freudian theory, Adolf Grunbaum, Ph.D., professor of the philosophy of science at the University of Pittsburgh, has expressed satisfaction that the new results, when added to previous evidence, show that fundamental psychoanalytic concepts can indeed be tested in empirical ways. For more than 40 years, Shevrin has led a team that has pushed at the boundaries between the disciplines of neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and psychoanalysis, looking for evidence that Freudian concepts such as the unconscious and repression could be documented through physical measures of brain activity. His work has explored the territory where neurobiology, thoughts, emotions and behavior meet. In 1968 he published the first report of brain responses to unconscious visual stimuli in
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
eventually came see that it had lost its supernatural vitality and efficacy, nevertheless, intellectually, philosophically, and psychologically confronted me with some irreconcilable truths. Either the East was right, or Gerard Manley Hopkins was right. *The Science of Being and The Art of Living* could not be more different in its conception of reality, of the self, of the universe, of God from Aquinas's *The Summa Theologica*. The Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius of Loyola does not read like anything one experienced on Teacher Training with Maharishi. But the critical moment occurred when I realized: Well, either Christ is right or Maharishi is right. And if Christ is right my enlightenment is an hallucination, a mystical illusionand Maharishi, he is as deceived as I amno matter what influence and power and integrity he seems to possess. And I have never seen anyone one thousandth as beautiful and impressive and seraphic as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. But truth is truth, and reality is reality. I came to the conclusion that Christ was right, that Aquinas was right, that Saint Theresa of Avila was right, and that Maharishi was deceived. What about, then, The Support of Nature and Mother is at Home once I renounced my enlightenment and all things TM? Well, interestingly enough I had to disavow , abjure 'nature' and therefore 'Mother'. I had to transfer my allegiance to another reality. That was easy while I was a Catholic, but in the fall of 1987 while in Lourdes, France, I became convinced that the Roman Catholic Church was without the power to save souls; that the Holy Ghost had abandoned it, that the Virgin Mary was not there (except in some mystically deceitful way). In a sense, I felt I was now on my own. In any event, I very much do sense, feel, perceive this reality; but it does not contain God, or some Truth, or salvation, or perfection. No, it does not. So there can be nothing there which can take one to heaven, make one into a beautiful human being. But what it did for me was to disassemble my enlightenment, and allow me to find myself again, to return to waking state consciousness, to my imperfection as a human being. But having travelled through LSD to TM to Maharishi to Guru Dev (teaching TM) to Enlightenment to Roman Catholicism I feel I have been immensely enriched and deepened as human being, but the suffering of deconstructing my enlightenmentwith helpthat was agony, confusion, terror beyond anything I could imagine. But it (getting de-enlightened) seems more or less to have come to an end. But when someone whether consciously or inadvertently, argues, propounds, opines in a context of personal cynicism, reactiveness, coldness, hostility, and cruelty, then I can't help it; I feel the universe disapproving of this, registering its sorrow that someone could believe they were articulating the truth about reality when in doing so they carry nothing of reality into their words, into their experience. This is tantamount to experiencing the feedback from reality. It is unmistakable. So, in my way of experiencing reality, Emily's two e-mails to Barry enlisted the beneficence and support of reality; whereas what had precipitated those two e-mails from Emily: Barry's nasty and offensive posts,this was because, without actually knowing this consciously, Emily was feeling the feedback from reality. --- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: Barry dosen't understand that Emily has true love and concern for him. --- iranitea no_reply@ wrote: Emily maybe full of love, but she doesn't understand Barry either: That he is completely truthful to himself and authentic. She could learn much from Barry. --- Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Iranitea, there's only one problem with this: where is the evidence in Emily's posts of some failure of sensitivity, openness, receptivity to Barry? --- authfriend jstein@ wrote: JS: Robin, I think there's a hidden assumption in all this that needs to be stated up front, or it throws a monkey wrench into the analysis: that if Barry is, as iranitea claims, completely truthful to himself and authentic, then *what he says* must reflect reality. I'm not sure this is the case. He could well be completely truthful to himself and authentic without necessarily reflecting reality in what he says.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote:
Face it Robin, you were *never* enlightened in the first
place.
Bingo! The conclusion is therefore: not the Maharishi was deceived, but Robin
was (and still is)
I found these two videos of Osho very helpful in understanding enlightenment:
You Are in Prison and You Think You Are Free
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XyOmYVIsig
Spiritual Growth and Enlightenment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP5J3i1H5dA
There are several things that strike me as improbably on the account below.
One of these is the fact that Robin presents his 'enlightenment' in a
straight line leading up from his encounters with Maharishi and the
experiences he has had on courses or through plain TM ('transcending'). But
in my own humble experiences, this is not like it is. I remember Maharishi
talking about the 'shock of unity' (I am not totally sure now, if it as
'shock of unity' or 'shock of Brahman') These were not very well known tapes,
but I am sure, more than just me, who are here, have seen it. This is what
actually coincides with my own experiences in this direction (I don't claim
enlightenment though.)
Think of somebody being in a prison, and coming out of it! If you were your
whole life in a prison, you don't know what freedom is, you will only realize
it the moment you come out. It is not just a slowly and natural fading into
something you had already known before - as Robin depicts it.
Think of Plato's cave analogy, how the person, who is led outside of the
cave, first is blended by the bright sun light, before, he only knew the
reflection of light, not even the sun, but of fire.
I cannot help, and notice the strong emotional sense of nostalgia in Robins
report. I think many TM teachers can identify with these feelings, the
memories of being on rounding courses and so on. I know these feelings, but I
don't in no way, have any sense of nostalgia about it. It is simply gone, was
nice at the time, but has been replaced by something better, more true and
more liberating. So. I believe firmly, once you are liberated, there will be
a break to all of your past life, that cannot be reverted.
On rereading my post above, I felt it wasn't really strong enough. So let me
add some thoughts and a little bit of context.
One is best made by a reference to Sankhya, something Willy referred to in a
post recently. Sankhya is all about separating Purusha and Prakriti. The
confusion in ignorance is the mixing of both. This discrimination (viveka) is
also important in Advaita. Now, Prakriti, that's all of nature, that's also all
the gods governing nature. The Upanishad says, that the gods keep man like
cattle, that they don't like man to get liberated (I don't remember which
Upanishad says it, but I am sure many of you have read it, and Carde would know
for sure). The point is, you are not just gathering the support of nature, you
are actually going out of nature, you are separating from Prakriti in your
consciousness.
Now I am aware of the influence of Gnosticism in the spiritual strata, and I
came recently across an Indian example of a teacher, obviously making
references to basically Gnostic thought, by calling all the Vedic gods archons.
I also discovered similar references in Aurobindean philosophy. Talking with my
friend in India, I pointed it out, being surrounded everywhere by all these
temples to various deities, in rural areas festivals are en vogue, where animal
sacrifice is still very popular, normal for the people there, as turkey is at
Xmas in our countries. My friend pointed out that all the Indian gods, but
especially a certain type of goddess worship is always ambivalent. The goddess
of smallpox has to be pacified, in order to not bring smallpox.
So he made an interesting point. He said, when you step outside of the circle,
where the gods have an influence on you, they might feel revengeful, and it
would be the role of the guru, to sort of pacify the gods in you. I know it
sounds weird, but this pacification would be a way, to reconcile your stepping
out of prakriti, but still live within prakriti in relative harmony. So, when
Maharishi speaks of support of nature, (he does so traditionally of course)
then, maybe, it is this what is meant. But the way he speaks about it, just
cuts the story short. It's sort of euphemistic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: Whatever, I remember the lectures and can't help noticing it all came to nought. Except the part about creating a situation where some of the physiological correlates of pure consciousness appear simultaneously with higher levels of brain activation, the purported purpose of practicing the techniques in the first place. Sparaig, I really wish you and others here would stop saying this. It really marks you as a newbie, someone who wasn't there when the TM-Sidhis came out. There was NO QUESTION when they were introduced that they were for the development of the siddhis them- selves. That was how they were promoted, and that was how they were measured. There used to be daily reports gathered at all the course locations and sent back to Maharishi, hoping to report the first person to truly levitate or perform any of the other objective siddhis. None ever happened. It was only AFTER none ever happened -- for years -- that the TM-Sidhi course began to be marketed in terms of expansion of consciousness or something to speed up enlightenment, or whatever euphemism you were sold. This happened because the TM-Sidhis FAILED, not because they succeeded. Exactly. I think the real discrepancy between anything Lawson or Judy say here about Sid(d)his, (see I don't even know anymore how to write it properly, shall I write it as in the original brochure, that came out 1977, or in the subsequent marketing maybe a year later), is all due to the fact that they were on courses about 10 years later. That's about the time, we had either already left the movement, or were about to leave it. In this sense, there is no doubt in what you say, but the notion, that the main aim of the Siddhis (as of 1977) as described as the development of enlightenment. Because at that time, the notion of 'capture the fort' in order to achieve everything that is around the fort, was still strong going in the movement. In the brochure of 1977 'Enlightenment and the Siddhis' (siddhis still written with dd), all these experiences of the siddhis were described as 'by-products' of the development of enlightenment, which would be, as you describe, incomplete without the full development of the siddhis, those special abilities, like flying of course.) This is of course also a reflection on the usual scriptural critique of the siddhis. The brochure had a lot of experience reports from six month courses, all describing various cosmic experiences, or well, experience of the super normal.) There were adds out showing seemingly flying people, saying something like 'breakthrough in human potential'. There was a banner/ exhibition showing people seemingly levitate. While it was always said, that these were mere byproducts, they were nevertheless stressed as necessary for enlightenment. There was a constant expectation fueled by rumors and sayings of Maharishi, some of them I was even present myself, that people would soon actually fly, first hoover and then fly, and that it was only due to stress in world consciousness, that it didn't yet happen. Maharishi also said this in videotapes circulated at the time, as I remember, he commented, that people would be surprised if somebody wouldn't sit inside a taxi, but hoover above it. This was on normal video tapes around 1978. This was also reflected in all the expectations we had at the time, I was living IN the movement, and the comments, you would hear from your fellow practitioners. For example people would comment that they feel that they are very close to REALLY fly, or that they were actually a few spit seconds longer in the air, or saw somebody like this during program. Why would the movement put people on 6 month courses on a wage to measure if they got actually lighter, videotaping it, to have evidence, if that wasn't what they expected? According to the definition you profess to believe in (Maharishi's), UC involves being able to fully perform the siddhis, objectively. According to that same definition, therefore, the TM movement has failed to produce even one person in over 40 years of teaching who was in UC. Yet you seem to think the odds are in your favor to keep on keepin' on. It's *fine* that you settled for the things you settled for, with TM and with the TM-Sidhis. But please don't pretend that the things you settled for were either how they were originally sold or that they were the goals of either at the time. The height of the high jump bar was lowered to match actual performance, that's all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: Judy, you do at times have the tendency to go off on a tangent. The point is in the begining MMY didn't consider siddhis as important. Then for a brief period of time it was considered important. Then, in the 80's due to lawsuits again a U-turn was made that it was meant only for enlightenment. This is actually absurd. No other school practices this approach. You still don't understand. Floating is a by-product of becoming enlightened. Becoming enlightened is a by-product of cultivating the ability to float via practice of the TM-Sidhis. That's somehow circular logic here, don't you think? A (Siddhis) is the result (by-product) of B (full enlightenment). B (full enlightenment) is the result of (practicing) A (siddhis). Now what? Everyone fully expected to eventually be floating when I took the TM-Sidhis in the mid 80's. However, we had to prove legally that we understood that they were for enlightenment and no guarantee of any power was made. I would venture to say that people STILL expect eventually to be floating when they take the course. Bingo! One other difference, between you course, and the one I was on, is, that we actually expected to float on the course itself. I mean, we didn't see any videos or demonstrations of YF, we were just exposed to photos presented in a very manipulated way, so we had the feeling people were actually staying longer in the air then they actually did. I remember how disappointed I was, when I actually saw the first person hopping on my course. And, after swallowing that, when I had started hopping myself, and it started to be 'fun' and good, we were still expecting floating in the nearby future. There was this rumor about a press conference announced, where Maharishi would fly across Lake Lucerne, and that would prepare world consciousness to rise enough, so that we all would float. Now the point I was making, was actually, while it was always stated that enlightenment was the MAIN goal, even in 1977, the full experience of the siddhis were a secondary goal, and at the time, this secondary goal was much more emphasized in publications and talks, than it was later on. For example, there were posters showing the Sidha Man, cross legged floating like a Superman. The goal to ultimately fly was always there. It is obvious, that through time, and failing to achieve these, this secondary goal was pushed more into the background as a distant possibility, while at the same time it was more and more substituted by the goals of reaching enlightenment, and, as this also didn't work out for most people, by the goal to change collective consciousness and achieve world peace. It's a classic case of goal replacements. Myself, I have become far more skeptical over the last 25 years, but I dutifully attempt to set my skepticism aside when I sit down to practice and remind myself that Yogic Flying is for floating. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL - mahavakyas
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote:
Tea wrote:
I remember Maharishi talking about the 'shock of unity'
my reply:
I'm not sure of the exact wording either, whether shock of unity or
Brahman. And I think in this context Maharishi talked about the mahavakyas,
phrases that the Master said to the disciple to help calm down the shock of
this transition:
Yes, it was about Mahavakyas
I am That
Thou art That
All This is That
That alone is
Probably best if said in Sanskrit (-:
Not sure about that.
And, just to add to the soup, I've been told there are different versions of
mahavakyas.
Right. Generally four Mahavakyas are selected as the main ones, each being from
a different Upanishad, corresponding to one of the different 4 Vedas. All the
Mahavakyas confirm the identity between individual soul, atma, and Brahman.
My guess is that their power stems from the shaktipat of the Master as well
as from their own inherent high vibe.
Sure, they have to be taught by the guru at the right moment, when the disciple
is ready for it.
From: iranitea no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 8:56 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
Â
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote:
Robin you say that you had to transfer your allegience to
another reality. There is only one reality.
Has it occured to you that both east and west could be wrong
or both partially right.?
Do you realise that by completely rejecting the east, you
have in effect 'thrown the baby along with the bathwater'.
The five paras that you have written below conclusively,
authoritatively and empricaly prove that you were never in
Unity, Robin.
Scientists say that any technology that is once unleashed
into the enviornment can never be rolled back. Same is the
case of enlightenment or awakening.
There is no such thing as de-enlightenment Robin. It's a
one way trip.
Face it Robin, you were *never* enlightened in the first
place.
Bingo! The conclusion is therefore: not the Maharishi was deceived, but Robin
was (and still is)
I found these two videos of Osho very helpful in understanding enlightenment:
You Are in Prison and You Think You Are Free
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XyOmYVIsig
Spiritual Growth and Enlightenment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP5J3i1H5dA
There are several things that strike me as improbably on the account below.
One of these is the fact that Robin presents his 'enlightenment' in a
straight line leading up from his encounters with Maharishi and the
experiences he has had on courses or through plain TM ('transcending'). But
in my own humble experiences, this is not like it is. I remember Maharishi
talking about the 'shock of unity' (I am not totally sure now, if it as
'shock of unity' or 'shock of Brahman') These were not very well known tapes,
but I am sure, more than just me, who are here, have seen it. This is what
actually coincides with my own experiences in this direction (I don't claim
enlightenment though.)
Think of somebody being in a prison, and coming out of it! If you were your
whole life in a prison, you don't know what freedom is, you will only realize
it the moment you come out. It is not just a slowly and natural fading into
something you had already known before - as Robin depicts it.
Think of Plato's cave analogy, how the person, who is led outside of the
cave, first is blended by the bright sun light, before, he only knew the
reflection of light, not even the sun, but of fire.
I cannot help, and notice the strong emotional sense of nostalgia in Robins
report. I think many TM teachers can identify with these feelings, the
memories of being on rounding courses and so on. I know these feelings, but I
don't in no way, have any sense of nostalgia about it. It is simply gone, was
nice at the time, but has been replaced by something better, more true and
more liberating. So. I believe firmly, once you are liberated, there will be
a break to all of your past life, that cannot be reverted.
Either the East was right, or Gerard Manley Hopkins was
right.
But the critical moment occurred when I realized: Well,
either Christ is right or Maharishi is right.
But truth is truth, and reality is reality. I came to the
conclusion that Christ was right, that Aquinas was right,
that Saint Theresa of Avila was right, and that Maharishi
was deceived.
I had to transfer my allegiance to another reality. That
was easy while I was a Catholic, but in the fall of 1987
while in Lourdes, France, I became convinced that the
Roman Catholic Church was without the power to save souls;
that the Holy Ghost had abandoned it, that the Virgin Mary
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: I *like* this new, more saloon-like ambiance of spirituality. There is a Been-There-Done-That-ed-ness about it that I find also contains balance, and a greater sense of acceptance of and comfort with Who One Is Right Here, Right Now, than the I'll believe anything mindset of the past. I find the newer, more laissez-faire Whatever 'tude, if anything, *more* spiritual than the former 'tude. In the past (and among some even today) I always got a feeling that the seeker reacting to Tall Tales Of Power with automatic and enthusiastic belief really *needed* to hear them. These stories were, for them, like a canteen of water in the desert. *Of course* we believed them at the time; we *needed* to believe them, to keep on believing in other stuff. I can't feel nostalgic about that. I can remember it, and have compassion for my younger self for feeling that way, but I don't miss it, and wouldn't want to be in that mindset again, ever. Just to prove that I include myself in my description of how twiffy and gullible we were in those days, today I was sent a scan of the only photo of myself with long hair that I've been able to find. And it's all pulled back into a pony tail, so you can't even see it here. :-( But this is how much of a twif I was at Squaw Valley in 1968. And I should be nostalgic about that? :-) [Me at Squaw Valley, 1968 :-)] Wow, nice photo, you look like you are just coming from Star Trek (what's the star at your chest?). Yeah, you do look a bit dreamy here, but so did I at the time I remember. 1968, quite early on, before my time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: There is no such thing as Enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@... wrote:
Iran I Tea
I find this particular article by Swartz to be an accurate
representation of Shankara's central points about samyag-darshana - the
gnosis of that Self which can never be an object or a subject. About
Swartz's other essays I haven't read and cannot say.
Okay. I have read one longer interview with him in a spiritual magazine, where
he both attacks Neo-Advaitins, and traditionalists ala Dayananda. So I may be a
bit prejudiced. On it's own terms, let's say if you are just interested in
Advaita, sort of in the Ramana way, I can see that what he says is useful.
Just I thought, when he gets into sematics ('There is no Advaita'), and
regarding other traditions, (Visisht Advaita) he is a bit phony.
You speak of samyag darshana. When I look it up on google, I get mainly Jain
sites.
What his booklet does not have is representation and analysis of
Shankara's views about a renunciate lifestyle and how this facilitates
realization of Upanishadic brahmajnana. This is most apparent in
Shankara's Bhagavad Gita Bhasya which is one of the oldest Gita
commentaries still extant. His Bhasya is prior to and quite different
from all commentaries which espouse the 3 sections of 6 chapters
each schema including Maharishi's.
Yes. It is actually said, that he established the gita as a book of authority,
everybody else started to comment on it after him.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote:
IIRC Shankara did not use the word Advaita for his philosophy, rather
it would have been called Sankhya at the time. Please also bear in mind,
that discrimination, Viveka, was the basis of Shankaras teaching.
Discrimination between Purusha and Prakriti, Brahman and Maya, therefore
one of the works attributed to him is called Vivekachudamani or Crest
jewel of discrimination.
Shankara, like Nagarjuna, was adhering to the doctrine of two truths,
as it is already mentioned in the Upanishads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-truths_doctrine
I have read much, but not yet all of the article by James Swartz, but
I have a hard time believing he represents Shankara in any way. For me
this is more like Neo-Advaita disguised as traditional Advaita
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is the dumbest, most samskaric job ever?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: It seems to me (especially skimming over the FFL posts for the last few days) that it's the job of apologist. Once one has set oneself (and one's self) up to perform that task, it's almost possible to ever quit and take another job. You're stuck with it pretty much forever. At first, the fledgling apologist acts out of a sense of loyalty or True Believerism, protecting or (in his or her mind) defending an ego (e.g., Maharishi) or a collection of egos (e.g., the TM movement) that it believes in. But after a short time doing this, the apologist's *own* ego gets involved. Every defense begins to be seen as a defense not only of the ego they've chosen to defend, but their own ego as well. To back down or resign becomes less and less possible. They're pretty much stuck with their self-assigned role forever, to protect their *own* ego as much as the ego of the teacher or the org. Sad, if you ask me. But karma, dude. Barry, spot-on analysis. I don't say this to just agree with you one more time, or to flatter you, but because the same thought occurred to me, when observing a certain poster here. And this is another example of a spiritual perspective you are bringing in to this discussion, I don't know how people could ever miss this, or are so prejudiced towards you (and in association towards me as well probably by now) to not see it for what it is. You start out by saying, that such defense by apologists is very much motivated by ego. The point is, if you attack a certain system (TM) or my master, you attack me, basically, so the ego feels hurt and reacts, to defend itself. I am not saying, that nobody should ever defend him or Herself, or something one is involved in, but it is good to point out what is actually involved: ego. It is the same if somebody says, I follow the highest teaching, or the highest teacher, or let's say the best meditation technique, or even the only truly effective meditation technique, all this is ego without doubt. Or if somebody says, I am in the highest state of consciousness, or if somebody says I was in the highest state, but abandoned it, as I found it delusional. You still claim that you have been where hardly anyone else was, and then go on to say that it sucks, with the subtext, that only you understand it, and that you have gone 'beyond' even though beyond should mean that you are just back to 'normal'. So, I think that this, defending, but also 'feeling special, is ego, is at least something that anybody should be AWARE of, and see it for what it is. That attributing the highest state to a teacher or technique or tradition is understandable, but it is at the same time a transference of ones own ego on some object or subject one identifies with strongly. It would be ultimately the job of the guru to smash this notion, but that's another story. And, well I made the same observation, that the obsession some people here have shown, with defending TM and winning arguments, actually is being transformed into something that has hardly anything to do with TM anymore, but becomes an obsession with people who are regarded as enemies. Interestingly, in giving in to the ego for a long and extended period, it seems the ego is claiming it's place in a more direct way, and the quarrel and obsession becomes an end in itself. It could of course be argued, that your post itself, would be just an example of trying to dumb certain people, and that my reply, would be just in the same category, that also this would be ego driven. This could be said of any argument of course, but it also depends on ho much a person is obsessed with it, trying to 'win'. Besides that I think that it is worthwhile to simply point it out. This whole point belongs to my spiritual 101, and everybody should know about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
Robin, the very moment you start to DEFEND your own enlightenment, there is already something wrong. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Dear Lawson, Just one thing you should know: By definition Unity Consciousness means the individual intention for one's actions does not start with oneself. It starts with cosmic intelligence. This was very much my experience. So, unless cosmic intelligence decided to make accomplishing the flying sidhi the criterion for Unity Consciousness; that is, cosmic intelligence, in a given moment decided to make someone fly through the flying sidhi, the mere demand that one prove one's enlightenment by being able to fly, well it is absurd. Because it suggests that one's behaviour becomes subject to the control and command of another person. Each and every action of some one who is enlightened is determined b cosmic intelligence, not individual intention separate from this cosmic intelligence. So Maharishi saying that being able to fly is the determinant of whether a person is enlightened or not, is just fatuousUNLESS he meant that, a person who is in Unity Consciousness, should cosmic intelligence through that person wish for him to fly, then he had better be able to fly! When I was in Unity Consciousness there was nothing anyone could say to me which would usurp the authority of this cosmic intelligence. So the demand: Prove that you are enlightened by flying right now would be the equivalent of saying: Your actions are determined by cosmic intelligence, but now I am going to be the author of your actions: Obey me, not cosmic intelligence. Maharishi himself was the classic exemplar of all this: never once attempting to prove or demonstrate he was enlightened. And this was because he was not subject to the demands or desires or judgments of anyone else. Not even to himself: he remained cosmic to the very end I believe. Do you understand what I am saying, Lawson? That if you were enlightened you would have the distinct and unchallengeable experience that all of your actions were out of your control, and therefore any person making a demand upon you simply would be computed cosmically in terms of: what is the correct and appropriate response to what this person is asking me to do, namely prove that I am enlightened by flying? And your response would NEVER be based upon satisfying the individual subjective consciousness of that person. Now it could come about that the cosmic intelligence decided: Ah, this person who is enlightened is being asked to fly in order to prove he or she is enlightened. Let's do it, then. But that would be on the terms of the cosmic intelligence and only incidentally having anything do with the individual having made this demand. Cosmic intelligence would take it out of this context and put it inside a cosmic context. That said, I believe enlightenment to be an unnatural state of consciousness, a perfect mystical hallucination. There is an experience of unboundednessperpetualand the experience of one's actions being spontaneous and creatively involuntary, guided, controlled and executed by cosmic intelligence, But the state of enlightenment is, in an ultimate sense, unrealIt is not a state of consciousness within which one is actually seeing reality as it actually is. This is NOT what is going on. One is seeing reality through a state of consciousness that does mechanically and metaphysically represent a state of consciousness other than mere waking state consciousness as known by the person before he or she became enlightened. But more than this, it is not the intelligence which created the universe which has created this state of consciousness; nor does the intelligence which created the universe have anything to do with the actions of the enlightened personI mean in the sense of being the direct and specific cause of those actions, In this sense the cosmic in cosmic consciousness is not cosmic at all. It certainly is a metaphysical power, and perhaps even is being controlled by very powerful intelligences; but those intelligences would be Maharishi's Vedic gods, or personal gods, or impulses of creative intelligence. Who have nothing to do with the creation of the universe nor the creation of Lawson, Robin, orsince she is part of this discussionJudy Stein. Even supposing there was someone who was a perfect Saintand was seen to levitate (as recorded in the lives of various Catholic Saints); in each case this levitation'flying'would never be at the behest of that person's free will; it would always be imposed upon that person 'from on high', from the intelligence of the Creator. Whatever is the nature of the intelligence which created the universe, which keeps the universe is existence, and which created you and me and keeps us in existence, that intelligence would
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: Robin, the very moment you start to DEFEND your own enlightenment, there is already something wrong. I didn't read any of this, and won't. It's too sad to participate in, even vicariously. I'm commenting because the something wrong that you perceive probably has to do with the word your with regard to enlightenment. As long as there is someone who feels it is my state of consciousness, or my past, or even my present, and that someone feels the need to defend any of these things, there is an ego involved. The larger the defense, the larger the ego. As I've said recently, IMO to interact with that ego is to facilitate its attempts to hold onto itself (its self), and thus is not a favor. Yep. I am already given to the power that rules my fate. And I cling to nothing, so I will have nothing to defend. I have no thoughts, so I will see. I fear nothing, so I will remember myself. Detached and at ease, I will dart past the Eagle to be free. Then. Now. No difference, as far as I can tell... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksa4VjKE3RY Great song! so true http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLKiMbC6s2k
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Wisdom of Chopra...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: I think it may also be time for a reminder to readers that, given their TM-critic agenda, one would think Vaj and Barry and iranitea would heartily *approve* of Robin, since he's the most radically anti-TM person who's ever been on FFL. Why is it that they go after him for having been a TB decades ago rather than congratulating him for having seen the light and rejected it all, as they would any other disillusioned former TMer who showed up here? It's really quite mysterious. I can't speak for Vaj and Barry here, but you force me another time to respond to you in a thread. I am NOT an anti-TMer. I am not anti Maharishi. Vis a vis Robin, Maharishi is a shining light of clarity. Maharishi was a trickster, yes, he used deception, but I believe whatever he did, he deemed it necessary at the time, and he succeeded in making meditation popular, in putting so many people on the path, I also think that TM ultimately is a good technique - and you should know this, didn't I tell you that I recently initiated? So, with all critique, I see him in an overall way on the positive side. I think he was 'enlightened', yes, but I cannot prove it, and I don't think he was the most enlightened person of this century or history, nor that TM is the fastest way, or the best meditation technique. I just think that it is A technique, not the fastest, there indeed is no fastest path. There is no doubt at all, that I don't see the eastern path, Vedanta, or any of the related paths, as delusional. These statements are delusional, and I cannot imagine how anybody seriously involved on the path of Vedanta, could even give room to them. I can only congratulate Xeno for the brilliant exposition he just gave to Robin. There is nothing to be added to what he just said. This is true wisdom as against some pseudo-intellectual imposition. I will never understand, how you could fall for this stupidity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Wisdom of Chopra...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@ wrote: One of the 'Downfalls' of the path to Enlightenment... Is that the ego, in it's last desperate attempt to remain control, gets completely out of hand, and the individual can fall to the 'Dark Side' attacking others, and bringing a lot of negagive attention to oneself...I assume this is what happened to Carlson... There's nothing rotten in that, but he's Carlsen, with an 'e', and thus *perhaps* Danish or Norwegian ancestry, not Swedish... :D Norwegian ancestry? Now that explains a lot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkcRZSdc8us
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Wisdom of Chopra...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@... wrote: One of the 'Downfalls' of the path to Enlightenment... Is that the ego, in it's last desperate attempt to remain control, gets completely out of hand, and the individual can fall to the 'Dark Side' attacking others, and bringing a lot of negagive attention to oneself...I assume this is what happened to Carlson... The ego must be continually subdued, as the power of the enlightened individual can become dangerous if it is not tempered with a deep reverence of one's teacher and one's purpose on earth... Bingo! I think, an opening is being created, and a lot of astral beings come in through it, the one's Carlsen thought to be the 'vedic gods'. These beings can look very powerful to the ordinary human. They sort of start playing football with you, empower you, just to let you fall in the end. A strong ego and an over eagerness to get/be enlightened, not checked properly by a master, is the sure source of a downfall.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Wisdom of Chopra...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@ wrote: One of the 'Downfalls' of the path to Enlightenment... Is that the ego, in it's last desperate attempt to remain control, gets completely out of hand, and the individual can fall to the 'Dark Side' attacking others, and bringing a lot of negagive attention to oneself...I assume this is what happened to Carlson... The ego must be continually subdued, as the power of the enlightened individual can become dangerous if it is not tempered with a deep reverence of one's teacher and one's purpose on earth... Bingo! I think, an opening is being created, and a lot of astral beings come in through it, the one's Carlsen thought to be the 'vedic gods'. These beings can look very powerful to the ordinary human. They sort of start playing football with you, empower you, just to let you fall in the end. A strong ego and an over eagerness to get/be enlightened, not checked properly by a master, is the sure source of a downfall. So he joined the Dark Side of the Force.. ;-) * http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=ensa=Xbiw=1251bih=692tbm=ischprmd=\ imvnstbnid=TjyvPUOQH4S8FM:imgrefurl=http://www.theforce.net/kids/corus\ cant/probe_droid/interview_palpatine.htmdocid=jhBfwLCsG_57gMimgurl=htt\ p://www.theforce.net/kids/coruscant/probe_droid/palpatine.jpgw=400h=30\ 0ei=tJvhT6CfDozvsgbGh5xxzoom=1
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Wisdom of Chopra...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [...] Point being, whatever MMY actually thought, he never gave Robin any reason to believe MMY didn't support him fully--until the MIU court case and the recorded affidavit. The story I heard was that there was a lot of stuff going on that Robin doesn't mention, such as Robin's followers buzzing the Domes with a helicopter, dropping leaflets, and riding a jeep over the flowerbeds in order to track people down and confront them. This lead to a lawsuit where Robin was banned from setting foot on the MIU campus. I assume the counter lawsuit is the one he talks about. L. 10. That the behavior of attorney, Vincent P. McCarthy, was unprofessional at best and at times bordered on the bizarre. This court can understand the behavior of Carlsen because of his interest in obtaining converts but it is difficult to understand how a member of the Bar could end up planning helicopter drops and other non-sensical methods of attempting to circumvent an agreement he negotiated and drafted. http://ia.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19860129_0042341.IA.htm/qx
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Wisdom of Chopra...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: With all due respect, I see any attempt to blame bad behavior and bad decisions on entities or the Dark Side or astral beings or being possessed as just the person in question being unwilling to take respon- sibility for being either crazy, or an asshole, or both. With all due respect, there are legal terms for when a person can be held accountable or not. Ask Mrs. Stein about that, before a certain time, RC was in a delusional state of UC, and may be excused for everything that happened at this time. We have posted a surveillance camera outside the Golden Domes to view what is really going on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nFXIPdseQA Crazy is a simpler, and thus more likely, explanation. Feeling as if one is not the author of one's actions? Nothing but psychological dissociation. Hearing voices or feeling as if one is being guided? Even more crazy. Treating people badly? Being an asshole.
[FairfieldLife] Master-Disciple or Rock Star-Groupie? (was Re: The Wisdom of Chopra...)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: One day the rock star happened to say to the groupie in passing, Wow, dude...you're the most *special* of all my special groupies. You've attained specialnessitude yourself. Just curious: anyone know, about how many people heard the rock star say that? Barry made up the quote, of course. Barry didn't 'make up' the quote, he wrote this in the context of an allegory, which is something I think everybody understood. So it was not meant to be a literal quote, but transferring what ever was being said into the context of the allegory. Are you really so dense, or do you so desperately need to show your 'Barry is lying' meme? But what MMY *did* say, according to Robin, would have been heard by all the participants on Robin's six-month course. MMY had asked Robin to describe his experience to the course participants on camera, so there was, at least at one point, videotape of this event.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Wisdom of Chopra...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: The point is he wanted MMY to certify his 'enlightened state'. Right. And so...? That's the whole point. I think Xeno or IraniTea or Salyawin can elaborate on it. No, they couldn't. Or if they could, they'd just be telling you what I go on to tell you below. I always find it consoling if other people answer on my behalf, or know what I can elaborate or not. I can sit back and be just lazy. Good to have an editor (or wait, she's just a proofreader)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Wisdom of Chopra...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: The question is whether iranitea feels he, iranitea, is responsible for his own bad behavior on FFL. Since he's one of Barry's groupies, and Barry, as we all know, takes no responsibility whatsoever for his bad behavior, I'm guessing iranitea doesn't either. It's always more easy for you to lump us together, Barry, me and don't forget Vaj, the axis of evil on FFL, because you don't have to change your attitude, and apply the same tactics and recycled accusation you do towards him since decades to me. You can simply project the same hatred and obsession you have for him to me. How convenient. The interesting thing is to compare Robin's behavior now, on FFL, with that of Barry and iranitea. Just for starters, compare the number of nasty posts the latter two have made about the Robin (including falsehoods) with the number Robin has made about anybody. It is very well known that all of RC's post have only one topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvDHwVM-PJI Now, that could be the reason.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Wisdom of Chopra...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: It is very well known that all of RC's post have only one topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvDHwVM-PJI Now, that could be the reason. See what I mean about falsehoods? Yep. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/312241 Oh, Judy, there you really got me! He is actually not writing about himself, and the post is a typical 4 lines long! And BTW, if you were to stop constantly attacking him and instead engage him in conversation about other topics, you might see even fewer posts from him about himself. Why should I engage him in conversation? I am just discussing with friends, how I interpret certain things that are being said here. And I am sort of upfront about it. If you call this attacking, it is your call. I actually have little interest in what he thinks for reasons I have already explained.
[FairfieldLife] Re: FFL -- An Orgy Of Self Importance
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: snip Robin: This is a remarkable thought. And I believe there really is something in it. Barry: I'm a nice guy. Where did I go wrong? I need you. Now let me say a few words here. Renaldo drove it in even deeper. Letterman has made Leno pay for hiding in that closet. Mitt doesn't know how to transcend his Mormonism enough to really get a feel for what it might take to beat Obama. GWB's hatred for Saddam was based upon a religious experience. Those Yankees had to lose sometime, right? Nick Swisher: Study him, Barry. You need to be more like Nick (notice what he does before every pitch? Looks up at the sky to salute his grandparentswho raised him.). Clinton has a faster mind than any politician of the last hundred years. But he doesn't have the right kind of subjective self-consciousness. He still hasn't revealed a single thing about Monica. And he can't. Fidel determines the consciousness of every Cuban. The Iranians, they're too mystical. (In the wrong kind of way.) Watch for that Thomas Nagel book when it comes out in September. Kabbala changed Madonnaand we miss her now. Kant defers to Aristotle now. And Santayana wishes he had believed those Blue Nuns now. Ludwig: he is the very same as always. But he still likes his favourite pupil, Elizabeth. Jamie Diamond is still a good guy. Jimmy Fallon would have been a priest if he lived before the Allied Bombing of Monte Cassino. Sartre should have played more soccer, like Camus did. I read Robert Nozick's Philosophical Explanations again and again in order to know that Truth really had gone out of the universe. Colin McGinn, he is too much of a ladies man. Can't get Wheaties in Canada. Just had some last night while here in Charlotte North Carolina. Love the USA! I have to give Judy a point here. Here RC is not talking ABOUT himself, but WITH himself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Wisdom of Chopra...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: IraniTea, look what he has written below. I think he sub-consciously suppressed these feelings while he was with Maharishi all these years and they are popping out now. --- maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: I wish your friend well; if I may be permitted to say it, I think him infinitely better off returning to Christianity than remaining at MIU. For I think Christianity (Roman Catholicism) ONCE was the Truth. It's just that God has withdrawn himself from his Church. Which is why and how the Eastern gods invaded the West with impunity. They couldn't do this on such a massive scale before. But I have gone beyond what you have asked me. Yep, I have seen it. I also saw when he was discouraging Emily last year to take up TM. He clearly has some feelings of revenge toward Maharishi, especially, when he has heard Maharishi's voice in the court case. That's when he finally awoke to what is going on. What do you do when something like this happens? He turned elsewhere, but where to go? I think here it backfires that he hasn't had exposure to any other eastern spiritual paths, so whatever he knows about Indian spirituality is sort of limited to the TM view, which he started to reject. What do people do then? He took recourse to his childhood religion, Christianity, and the rest of the story is well known. What is obvious, is that he had to redress his rejection of everything TM/eastern into a whole rejection of a world view, something truly on a cosmic scale. Same with his ultimate rejection of Catholicism. It's not just that he found RCC personally empty after some time, but it had to be a bombastic event of a cosmic dimension, where God withdrew his spirit from the Church.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My TM mantra dilemna--- help requested...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: Short beejs like the first technique work because they are short and about anyone can give them. The longer ones, even though easily learned, require a jump start by a teacher who knows how to do that. In fact MMY started out that way. My replacement mantra was simply Shiva mantra or Om Nama Shivaya. A friend gave me a small card that Muktananda had zapped with that mantra printed on it. That's basically what his school (Kashmiri Shaivism) taught. It worked very well. I learned a guru mantra from my tantra teacher as well as how to charge a mantra and teach someone using shaktipat. I agree with Bhairitu here. I think longer mantras, like the traditional mantras, are better unless one is a beginner. I think that is why there always was a certain emphasis in TM to take so-called advanced techniques, they are just longer, more complete mantras. Besides that, I agree that 'Shri' is just a substitution for 'OM', and the only reason why it is not used in TM is orthodoxy, that is to say caste considerations. There are other traditions that use similar distinctions, but they are very few. The same is true for the Gayatri mantra, it is longer, and I had very good experiences with it. (I don't use the Gayatri now, but an equally long mantra, IF I use a mantra at all.)
